Talk:Moors/Archive 7

How did the Moors look? Not like the images in this article. Here's proof.


It would take me all night to insert all of the images here. You can click on this link here to see a plethora of images depicting the true ethnicity of Moors.

Also, another use of one sided bias scholarship. The statement that says

"The Moors were Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages. The Moors were initially of Berber and Arab descent, though the term was later applied to Africans, Iberian Christian converts to Islam, and people of mixed ancestry."

This is completely untrue and instead of using an etymological dictionary to relay a proper etymological origin of the use of the word, two works are cited. The problem with using sources non-vetted, especially when we are dealing with religion/race, is called POLEMICAL. According to the online etymological dictionary, we read:

Moor (n.) "North African, Berber," late 14c., from Old French More, from Medieval Latin Morus, from Latin Maurus "inhabitant of Mauritania" (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Greek Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black" (but this adjective only appears in late Greek and may as well be from the people's name as the reverse''). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India.[emphasis mines]

When it says "perhaps a native name," it is no doubt a native name. In Wars of Justinian, written by Procopius around 545 B.C. we find letters written from Belasarius to the Moors, and return correspondence from the Moors themselves, to Justinian's general addressing themselves as Moors. Read Greek and English transliterations here.

You have the Moorish Science Temple of America in your "See also" section but you do not have Prophet Noble Drew Ali in your "Notable Moors" section. Why? It is he who founded the very first Islamic organization on this land in 1913 and started a chain of events that would give birth to the Nation of Islam, the Five Percent Nation, and many other groups that sprang from them.

I have thoroughly read your rules and still, if I edit anything on these pages, even if I put "citation needed", it will be removed. I am no conspiracy theorist but concerning everything Moorish on wikipedia, those using biased or not even any sources at all can edit pages while those who can come with a plethora of sources cannot edit at all. Very interesting indeed...Sheik Way-El 09:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs)


 * Dealing with the images first. The Google link doesn't help. Not only does it fail our criteria for reliable sources, my own experience of Google image searches is that they bring up a huge number of unrelated images. The first is a photograph and no reliable sources - see WP:RS - these would have to be academic sources. The second is an old painting File:Hyacinthe Rigaud - Jeune nègre avec un arc (ca.1697).jpg used at Black people, no claim that is a Moor by the painter. The third is a photo used in Moorish Science Temple of America with the same problem as the other photo. I can't identify the fourth.


 * We can't use an etymological dictionary to define the Moors. We need to stick to academic sources. And I'm sorry, but we are a mainstream encyclopedia and we can't suggest that there is a Moorish population alive today. That there are people who identify as Moors is obviously the case, but we can't use that. Doug Weller  talk 12:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the images that I posted, NONE of which are used by the Moorish Science Temple of America (it appears you're dishonest too), were just basic visual references. I have the sources of 85% of the almost 100 pictures painted by Europeans of the Moors between the 10th - 19th century. I posted the link to give more credence to the ethnicity of the Moors and that is, if you google the word Moor and click on images, you will see the predominantly MOORISH (not black)dark sable brown skin people pop up. This wiki article is completely biased.

Secondly, because you do not believe (or suggest) that there are a Moorish people alive today, does not mean anything. That is your opinion and general opinion is no proof of truth for the generalities of men are born of ignorance. We are what our forefathers were without doubt or contradiction and if our ancestors were Moors, who identified themselves as Moors, then who are you to say otherwise??? You must be god that you can change the descent nature of man by your mere notions and whims. Ivan Van Sertima, in his book Golden Age of the Moors, which is the compiled research of 15 ACADEMICS into one journal, states of the name Moor that it "runs like a ripple across a vast pool of languages" (page 7). In English, we have the word M-O-O-R today and we have the people called Moors this day, right here in America i.e., us, the Moorish Americans.

That comment of yours is a completely biased one and this article reflects your bias in that you will choose images of turbaned Europeans and Persians as the proofs of Moors when dozens of pictures and academic sources say different so we will present some of the MANY ethnic sources to back up our claims. Also, you choose to call us "black" people, something that we are not. You say that (suggest rather) that there is no Moorish population alive today. I am living proof unless, you are saying that I am a liar. Well then, my challenge is, to prove to me and all readers in the wiki world who may come across this page, that there are "black" populations in the world today. Show me a picture of just ONE black person to prove your case. A mainstream encyclopedia should know the difference between adjectives and nouns. Black is an ADJECTIVE and NOT a noun. So I'll await your finds, if, you are not dishonest and subjectively bias.

References to the ethnicity of the Moors cited in part from the book Golden Age of the Moors:

Procopius, when distinguishing another group of North Africans, explicates the ethnicity of the Moors by using the popular misnomer "black." He would state in part that the other peoples were not "black skinned like the Moors"

As late as 1398 we find the following reference to the Moors: "Also the nacyn [nation] of Maurys [Moors] theyr blacke colour comyth of the inner partes"

There are Irish records of a Viking raid on Spain and North Africa in 862. During the raid a number of Moors were captured and some carried to Dublin. In Ireland they were known as the "blue men" (Irish, fir gorma; Old Norse, blamenn). The entry is under the title "Three fragments copied from Ancient Sources," and sheds further light on the ethnicity of the Moors. The entry reads: "After that, the Scandinavians went through the country, and ravaged it; and they burned the whole land; and they brought a great host of [the Moors] in captivity with them to Ireland. These are the 'blue men' (fir gorma); because the Moors are the same as negroes; Mauretania is the same as negro-land."

In the Cantiga 185 of King Alfonso the Wise of Spain (1245-86), three Moors attacking the Castle of Chincoya are described as "black as Satan." In Cantiga 329, an "extremely" black man who has stole objects from a Christian church is identified as a Moor.

I have at least TWO DOZEN or more sources that I can list here PROVING the ethnicity of the Moor as well; all contemporaneous with the time cited directly or secondary. It is now up to you to provide contemporaneous sources that prove that Moors are described like the images that you have posted on this page.



I have so much more that proves that this article is completely biased in its depiction of a people who were GIVEN the name Moors by mainly Christian historians. Check Arabic sources, these new Arabs (the original Arabs were Moors) never called themselves Moors. In fact, they barely use that name, they prefer Berberi as opposed to Moor.

That's Check... Mate in two more moves. Your move Doug. Prove that this page is not a product of European psychology/literary racism and bring your proofs. --Sheik Way-El 08:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs)


 * " NONE of which are used by the Moorish Science Temple of America (it appears you're dishonest too), " That ends the discussion. I never said that and I won't discuss with someone who so easily accuses someone of dishonesty.. Doug Weller  talk 10:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller the self appointed Wikipedia editor said:

"The third is a photo used in Moorish Science Temple of America with the same problem as the other photo. I can't identify the fourth."

You are very dishonest and disingenuous and I have done a thorough research on you and you are in fact a bigot and I am going expose you further. You must be "Jewish" (the real Jews were Moors) or something. Stay tuned... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * At least two of the photos posted above appear on the website for the Moorish Science Temple of America, but that is beside the point. Doug Weller is merely explaining Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, with which these images do not comply. Please also review the WP policy on personal attacks, for your remarks are utterly inappropriate and could result in your editing privileges being blocked. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Doug did not give a link to that website. That is disingenuous. My behavior is not inappropriate but a reaction to what clearly shows itself to be literary racism. Notice, you nor Doug made ANY mention of the ETHNIC sources of the Moors that I cited, COMPLYING WITH Doug's request. You find one thing to harp on to ignore everything else, and then threaten to block me. Geeeeesh...what power to control what people believe by lying to them.

Then Doug claimed that or suggested that there are no Moorish populations alive today with absolutely no proofs to back up his claims. I am guessing Wiki editors don't hold each other to the same standards as the general public.--Sheik Way-El 17:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs)


 * Personal attacks -- such as calling other editors liars and bigots and speculating about their religion -- is always inappropriate. Please discuss content in a civil manner and assume the good faith of other editors. You will get nowhere with your substantive argument so long as you focus on other contributors. You disparage "Wiki editors," when you yourself are one at this point; please adhere to WP policies on conduct. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

_________________

When someone claims that it is their job to be completely unbiased and to use an academic standard basically by enforcing that standard and then injects their own personal feelings into a board such as this, then it is only right that this person be criticized for his/her hypocrisy. That is not an attack. Jewish is the ethnicity, Judaism is the religion. If I was an editor, then the LEGITIMATE EDITS that I have made would not have been removed. Even when asking for citations, those were removed. Clearly, I am just a man that can complain in the TALK SECTION of pages, not an editor.--Sheik Way-El 18:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk • contribs)

I want to add they closed my section on " moors are black not arab" said racist thingss when I started to ask them questions on moors. Wiki isn't nonbais they are bais.

wiki is racist anti black history and the editors are lairs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.42.130 (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I was just at the Alhambra, a major and magnificent Moorish site. That they were Berbers and Arabs is clear, both from written records and obvious in the architecture and decoration.  Doug Weller  talk 14:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The very word Moor means black and was first used by Greeks and Romans! All eye witness that seen the moors at the time said they were black as ink and NOT all Moors were Muslim! You will never see an Arab calling himself a moor because Arabs were to proud to be called Moors! Moors were a mixture of different black Africans that being said there are Black Berbers and black Arabs. The Moors was also in Mali hence Mali having tons of books. Marcco is part desert and just like Africa it is a hot hot country To days Moors are NOT the original Moors. It is like saying all of North america was not native Indian. Also Othello is a just tanned character. When shakspear wrote about the Moors he always described them as being Black. Go read all shakespears play like merchant of Venice and songs of Roland. I was also looking at wikis ideas Othello and Othello is not an Arab looking person he is based off of Giraldi Cinthio's Gli Hecatommithi shake spears play Othello source for the story was  - Giraldi Cinthio's Gli Hecatommithi - was published in the 1500s, before Al-Annuri's career. I want to add will never forget the treatment I got from people on wiki http://www.shakespeare-navigators.com/othello/Osource.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by

Alfonso X (1221-1284 AD), king of Castile said: "All of the Moorish soldiers were dressed with silk and black wool that had been forcibily acquired. Their faces were black like pitch and the most handsome of them were black as a cooking pan." (Cantigas of Santa Maria) The Cantigas of Santa Maria were a collection of 420 poems that were partially written by Alfonso X and often attributed to him. This isn't the only person who bare witness to black Moors. Procopius of Ceasarea (500-560 AD), a Bynzantine scholar who wrote in Greek, said in his History of the Wars: "beyond that there are men not black-skinned like the Moors"﻿Moors were not black this is image of african moors fighting the roman they are black the romans said it them self. http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Lusius_Quietus_on_Column_of_Trajan.jpg Oh the Romans and the Greeks were just tan people and they wrote Moors were black!

68.145.42.130 (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if you remove my link or not I point is your credibility is garbage! you can hide be hide copy right BS statement all your want! Isn't that what tpp is using copy right laws so big companies like wiki hide from the truth and misconduct. The fact is wiki has history of anti black racism. I am going to show it to world and I have! Also you trying to threaten me and removing my links or comment is moderator abuse. If you choose to ignore that fact is not my problem and NO one is the world has suffered as much as black people. Black people are told to shut up and for get their history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.42.130 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't threaten you, I asked politely that you not add copyright links. My removal was mandatory, like it or not. As someone who marched with Martin Luther King, your insults really don't matter to me and it's clear that engaging in a discussion would you is fruitless. Doug Weller  talk 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * when I was trying to prove the Moors was black you threaten to banned and not share my information any more you also threaten me with all copy right bs so you can hide proof of wiki racism!You break international law by removing my basic human right!


 * You have no rights on a private organisation's website. And we have every right to insist that copyright links not be added here. I have only posted to your talk page once and didn't make any suggestion of a block or a ban, nor so far as I can see have I here. Show me where I suggested that please or drop the claim. Doug Weller  talk 15:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)I don't care if your a private company your job when dealing with history is be non bais and check sources! Your so called private company has a history of anti black racism and treated me like garbage then removed my basic human rights then threaten me.Your so called private company also removed my complaints and links about other people feeling racism from wiki. I wonder how many black people are on your panel last I checked there was none!So what gives you the right to talk even talk  about any black or african history?You want to know what I think wiki the type of company that hires people  who would think and want to say that black people have no history!Then people can  turn around and promote black genocide and dehumanization of black people!In my eyes wiki is a privately own white man company white people and Arabs who have history in destroying and killing and enslaving black people!this link as an example of so called expert killing a black person for no reason!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/04/25/3772111/everything-thats-wrong-with-americas-death-penalty-in-one-awful-case/

wiki a private company that might affect billions of people lives! A company that ask people for money! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.42.130 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly Misleading Citations
What is the policy on statements attributed to dubious / incorrectly cited works? There are several claims in here, that after checking the citations, seem to be false (or at least not in the source material). There are also some poorly made citations that make it near impossible to verify the claims. An example of the latter is

'"Moors" were black by definition.'

With the citation being: Staying Roman: Conquest and Identity in Africa and the Mediterranean, Jonathan Conant, Cambridge University Press, 2012. Quote: Indeed, by the time Isidore of Seville came to write his 'Etymologies,' the word Maurus or ‘Moor’ had become an adjective in Latin, ‘for the Greeks call black, mauron’."In Isidore’s day, Moors were black by definition…

The problem with this citation is that the user who added it marked it as a quote, instead of citing a page. This is a 437 page book, it's not possible to go through every page and check if this claim is made or not. So should I add a citation needed span with detail? Or remove the incorrect claims? I want to make sure there's a consensus so I don't waste people's time with edits that end up being reverted. Thanks!

--Martin Van Ballin&#39; (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Google books works for me. p. 269 "Finally, Moors were also typically thought of as darker-skinned than the Byzantines and Romano-Africans living along the Mediterranean coast. Procopius says as much, calling the Moors ‘dark-skinned’ or ‘swarthy* (geAccvoxpooi) as a people.90 Indeed, by the time Isidore of Seville came to write his Etymologies, the word Mourns or ‘Moor’ had become an adjective in Latin, ‘for the Greeks call “black” mauron\9T In Isidores day. Moors were black by definition." They were also seen as evil, even demonic. Doug Weller  talk 11:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I've updated the citation to reflect the page number to prevent future confusion for others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Van Ballin' (talk • contribs) 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moors&oldid=prev&diff=724076695
So we had "Arabs, Berbers, North Africans (primarily those of Morrocan descent) and Muslim Europeans" and someone changed it to "Arabs, Berber North Africans and Muslim Europeans", which looked to me like the usual drive-by axe-grinding given the user's other edits, so I changed it back.

Now has reverted me with the edit summary 'north africans are made up of arabs and berbers, so saying "North Africans" again is superfluous'.

I'm not convinced and am seeking other opinions. As I see it, part of the point here is that Christian Europeans used the term "variously" - to apply to all manner of people. The reverted text is confusing at best - why only Berber North Africans not Arab North Africans? Did Berbers stop being Moors if they went to Andulasia? (Obviously not). "Arabs, Berbers, North Africans (primarily those of Morrocan descent) and Muslim Europeans" covers all the bases; leave it be. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For one thing, that doesn't cover all the bases. It doesn't even spell Moroccans right, which should disqualify it immediately. Are there any North Africans who were not Arabs or Berbers? No. Why do we include them separately? Why are Moroccans singled out? "Moors" could (and did) equally well apply to people of Tunisian, Algerian or Libyan descent, so why aren't they included? What is "Moroccan descent"; Morocco wasn't even a country when "Moor" originated, and there is in no meaningful sense a "Moroccan" ethnicity separate from Arab and Berber ethnicity. I think the newer text is less flawed. Rwenonah (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that a piece of text containing a typo should immediately be discarded. I'll leave the rest for other editors to comment on. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Telling the woods from the trees - the file I deleted and Othello
Today I deleted a file recently uploaded to Commons by a new account who also added it here, File:Moor Chief.jpg because the title it has now is misleading. The painter didn't suggest it was a Moor. But I was looking at a 'tree' and missing the forest. It is a 19th century painting and the article doesn't suggest anywhere that there were any people called Moors in the 18th century. That reason alone is enough to say that the painting doesn't belong here. The Othello painting is also 19th century and I think should be removed. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe moved down the gallery, but I still feel a picture of Othello is interesting as the most well-known fictional Moor. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Or move it into the popular culture section? Doug Weller  talk 19:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that would be very sensible and if there are no objections we should do it. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

///////////////

'''From Ireland ...

'''Have to agree with the previous poster on here, in that Wiki is becoming quite known for apparent bias. Why just one photo showing very pale people as Moors? I have been doing research and from what I have come across, I feel that there should be, at the very least, a mixture of the skin tones added for a fuller picture of what they looked like. This is just giving one side to those who are not previously familiar with any study on the subject.''' ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.170.170 (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The Moors pre-date Islam the start of the paragraph does not make sense.The Romans were the first people to use the word Moor to describe the people that lived there. Wiki bais because wiki is racist towards black people there is a history of racism on wiki when comes to black people. Last time checked st Maurice the moor the predate Islam   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

in Spanish
In Spanish the term 'moro' is merely descriptive, and as such is rendered by the authoritative dictionary of the Spanish language. That is the standard usage.

Hence, I dont see why the observations of some authors (all of them but one non-Spanish, by the way) should go first in the text.

Worse: of the cited ebooks, a search for 'moor' or 'moro' in 'Geopolitics of the EU' shows 0 results. Idem for these searches in 'Transcultural modernities'.

'Translating sensitive Texts' renders three results for 'moor' (none derogatory) and 0 for 'moro'. I couldnt manage to find a 'search' option at 'The multiculturalism backlash'. Idem for 'Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship'.

Hence, there is a clear and authoritative source saying that it is not derogatory and five so-called sources in which I didnt manage to find any reference any reference at all to the word 'moro'. I am not the best when searching at ebooks, but unless someone else finds any of the related words, these sources (and the claim they are apparently supporting) should be removed. MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 09:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Moors
This info is wrong please re-study — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.105.94.12 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Moors: people who overran the Iberian Peninsula in A.D. 711.

In A.D. 711 the Moors, Islamic invaders from northern Africa, conquered the Iberian Peninsula. Spain's culture changed dramatically because of the influence of the Moors. Today the culture of Spain and Portugal are quite different from other cultures of Europe because of the Moorish influence on their art, architecture, engineering, music, and literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.134.189.87 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree in that "the Moors (...) conquered the Iberian Peninsula" makes no sense. This same article reads that the Moors are neither a distinct nor a self-defined people. Hence, it makes little sense that an undescribed mass of people did such a feature. I think we will all agree in that it is much more true to history to talk about Umayyad conquest, even though we know that the lion's share of the troops were what came to be known by Christians as "moors".  MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 13:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

no Moorish coat of arms? no saint benedict the Moor? Can't show people that because they look and are black! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_98247yflU https://www.google.ca/search?q=moorish+coat+of+arms&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIsoKJp5bPAhWr3YMKHbNJClQQvwUIGygA&biw=1920&bih=940 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Change in the lede
I removed the discussion of Sicily in the introduction as the sole reference given directly contradicts the text; the hyperlink does _not_ refer to Moors but to Arabs conquering Sicily. (The same problem exists elsewhere in this article; people explicitly identified as Arabs are, in the article, given as Moors; probably the entire Sicily section should be removed without proper citations).Duedemagistris (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Usual interminable discussion as to whether the Moors were black
[I have boldly moved this to its own heading to prevent it junking up the rest of the talk page.] Pinkbeast (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

don't move it wiki racist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.59.74 (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

the real truth wiki does not want to show about the Moors being black! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmZm4PRhfNg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So this afrocentrist youtube channel is your reference ? --Aṭlas (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

your eurocentric and eurocentric shalors have has caused more harm to black people. Eurcentics have lied more often in the past let me know when you want exmples. I would like for you answer why you have removed my links. Also, why did you remove other people comments on the matter? What gives you the right to remove what they have said the only thing you're proving that your racist and bias,It was the white that goes around and says that black people have no history. In america they have killed black based on skin color how much more history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eurocentrism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So where is your references for this Black moors ? --Aṭlas (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't ask, we get walls of text from fringe sites, etc. Doug Weller  talk 19:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok --Aṭlas (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So why did you remove my comments a links? why did you remove my youtube link with a what as your reasoning

Why did you remove my links/ I thought you were an educated scholar? I wonder did you look at those links? One link is from googling it self. Yea the Moorish coats of arms with so many black people heads why is that? why did you remove my link with a catholic priest talking about saint benedict the moor who was black?


 * I didn't. I moved them under their own subheading on this talk page because they were not pertinent to the heading you put them under. Earlier discussion has been removed by ClueBot, a bot that removes discussion when it seems to have come to an end. It does so without regard to the content. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added tons of links on the subject of Moors here and I have asked questions you so called scholars failed to answer. But you're too racist to under stand that. There are links I would have loved to post here could fill this entire page sources why because of this subject I research a lot and don't get paid for it. White people and Arabs who have destroyed black people lives and history with the Muslim slave trade and transatlantic slave want to me and afro-centric? White people and Arabs have a history of black racism. To back up my comment I will add these links here as proof to back up what I say is true and your have no credibility with your comments towards me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Bz9Cl4zgI&t=0s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vhx5OHfekk&t=0s

The famous Arab philosopher Ibn Khaldun, expressed racist attitudes toward black Africans: “The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and their proximity to the animal stage,” Khaldun wrote. Another Arab writer, of the 14th Century, asked: “Is there anything more vile than black slaves, of less good and more evil than they?”

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/06/201362472519107286.html

Doctor John clerk about how white people told black people we have no history! White people who invented the lie called the bell curve so they can kill and blame black people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DPr0JRn0KQ

Just to prove That I could fill this page about Moors I want to add this link here where I have filled the youtube comment proving how black the moors were. At Christmas time when you're with your family, I am busy researching and learning about the Moors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Xnc8ijkrA&list=PLqIKEFH3xg-5wdq9X2awaeSUXNHqtO9dE&index=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that all you could do ? youtube links ? afrocentrist youtube channels ? You've disappointed me.--Aṭlas (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

First, your previous posts were not removed; they were archived (see links at the top of this page). Second, rather than fill the page with links that are not of use here, please review the policy on reliable sources. YouTube videos, editorials, and "google itself" do not qualify. It would also help if you would learn to sign your posts (add four '~' marks after your comments) so that we can tell when one comment ends and another starts. You could also make a coherent argument, rather than simply railing at people for being racist for not watching the videos you link and crafting the argument for you. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed the IPs last posts, this is not a place to call ethnic groups racist. If there are academic sources discussing racism and the Moors, ok, but nothing else. Doug Weller  talk 17:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

who are you to tell me what isn't and who isn't racist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Besides being a very experienced editor, I'm an Administrator and an elected member of the Arbitration Committee. But I'm not telling you who is or who is not racist, I'm telling you not to use Wikipedia to attack an ethnic group as racist. Doug Weller  talk 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

well, I'm calling you out for mod abuse and my experience on wiki has been nothing but abusive. I also notice on a lot of black people subject wiki has been accused of racial bais so I am not the only one.

I have another question are you making fun of my grammer skill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * What exactly have I said to make you think that? Doug Weller  talk 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * However, if they were "threaten off of wiki" (sic) because they "don't agree with wiki on moors!" (sic) they should report this in more detail, so the threats can be dealt with. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I was mistreated on wiki since the very first day proof the proof is found in the wiki archives notice my questions and then crossed out comments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moors/Archive_2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC) I was threatened off of wiki the first time and I was threaten off of wiki again.


 * The crossed off comments have nothing to do with you. That was a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, who we blocked when we discovered him and struck out his comments, which is routine. Doug Weller  talk 19:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)No but what that person said to me when I was asking those questions were indirectly offensive to wards black people and very racial. I also want to say that there isn't enough black moorish pictures on the subject. If it wasn't for me wiki would still been telling people Moors were white people and moors means white people. I also was made fun of because of grammar!

It was me that asked the tough questions and got wiki to put black images of moors. If it wasn't for me wiki would not have put them there. One more think Jesus wouldn't have been white either Torah is based on Black African fairy tales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xrzFVNVFmu4/USEirDBJDJI/AAAAAAAAqmU/HnQqIA5qkLE/s1600/ausetherutomaryjesus.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC) I have seen tons of european images of black moors where are they talked about and where are they found on wiki? you people call your self scholars and can barley answer my questions? The very word moor means black and was frist used by the romans! The Moors predate Islam and show me where arabs call them self a moor please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And more attacks - this time on Jews. Don't believe everything you see on the web. The use of words changes but in any case the Latin word for black is 'niger', which is where the word nigger came from. Again you've been misinformed. The article doesn't say that any group called themselves Moors, read it again. The term we are discussing was mainly used during the Middle Ages, not before Islam. Doug Weller  talk

how this an attack on jews please Torah take place in Africa Egypt is Africa! what is a the UV ray chart for that kind of environment? Egypt is a hot country that means you're going to need pigmentation to survive there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

According to the torha the sons of ham ruled africa and the middle east or what was once the horn of afria http://kukis.org/Doctrines/genealogies/land-of-ham-and-shem-map1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like you to show me proof of the exdous for me plase as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTyMpuTL8Ow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5JnnWvgRjg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEpSoaj8hfQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0s2n6CQno4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

don't think the Exodus was real I do think the Torah is Jewish, and true or not calling it a fairytale ale looks like insulting zjrpews. But I give up now. That web site is fringe nonsense and useless, far from anything we'd use as a source. And you will find plenty of groups that e We don't call black living in those temperatures all over the world. If you search for images of Berbers wow will find complexions and hair color can be light or dark. But your link to the Kuki site proves we are wasting our time with you. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I have another question for you have you ever seen Zeitgeist ducumentary on jesus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

explain these links here for me please, in fact explain all the links I just gave https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3G6D8itOfBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGqrcp-NsLM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1CWBKRWIg0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhKGPslPwwA

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

My grammer is bad but you so called shalors failed to answer my questions why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No, this is not a webforum where you can debate the Moors, the Torah, etc. No one should be answering your questions. If you bring sources that can be considered reliable by WP:RS someone might be willing to discuss whether they can be used here (presuming they discuss the Moors), but you aren't doing that. Doug Weller  talk 21:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your grammar is not bad, but your spelling is abominable. "(sic)" indicates not that I am making fun of you but that the spelling errors in text I quote were yours: ie, that I am taking the time to quote you accurately.
 * I do recommend you read Doug's observation that the struck-through comments were by a banned user and that they are struck through because that user is banned. You appear on the face of it to be having a go at us because of the actions of someone who was rightly banned from using Wikipedia.
 * This is particularly vexing because I have done my best when editing the page to resist the (apparently nationalistically motivated) idea that the Moors were entirely comprised of relatively light-skinned Arabs. Some of the images of which you say you "asked the tought questions and got wki to put black images of moors" (sic) are on this page because I have argued against their removal. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You know who isn't credible wiki is not credible. How about stop writing and giving people the wrong false information about anything regarding black people or any thing coming out of African! Why because wiki has very racist and bais point of view. Also, black people have a long history of people destroying, distorting and creating myths on black history. Black people have dedicated hate groups.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwpO-nnFY9g Black people have a very long history of genocide and crimes against humanity done to them. Even white Jewish people have words like Cushi to describe black people and have played a role in the slave trade.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cushi http://forward.com/culture/art/310222/jewish-slavery-caribbean-exhibition/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cushi http://forward.com/culture/art/310222/jewish-slavery-caribbean-exhibition/  I am want to so say I am of Caribbean decent. I will add that there have been consistent complaints on black subjects on the wiki about having bais points of view and even racist points of view on the wiki. I passionately research these kinds of topic very day. I hang out with historians online and forums that debate Moors, Ancient Hebrews, Hannibal, the slave trade, Tuskegee air men, The Muslim slave trade, or any subject that might have black people in them. I can hold my own with any so-called historian. let me remind you people here were racist towards me and failed to answer my basic questions. If you failed to answer my basic questions what gives you the right to call your self an expert and teach people history? You also have no business making fun of my grammar you don't know my history. There are words for people making fun of other people online over their weakness it's called harassment and online bullying which are internet crimes. Clearly, the wiki mod likes cause harassment.

I am looking at the wiki page and have watched wiki slowly remove any traces of Moors being black! Let me remind wiki again what Moor means.

here is one source quote " Moor (n.) "North African, Berber," late 14c., from Old French More, from Medieval Latin Morus, from Latin Maurus "inhabitant of Mauritania" (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Greek Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black" (but this adjective only appears in late Greek and may as well be from the people's name as the reverse). Being a dark people in relation to Europeans, their name in the Middle Ages was a synonym for "Negro;" later (16c.-17c.) used indiscriminately of Muslims (Persians, Arabs, etc.) but especially those in India."http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moorNow if you did your research you would have learned that Moors predate islam and the word moor was ues directly towwards black people living in Africa. Black people who were the first people to live on the planet. The Romans and greeks wrote about the Moors. The Romans and greeks did not write about any Arab!By the way, the very first Arabs were black people. Must eyewintness who wrote about Moors clearly said the Moors were black! quote " When the topic of the Moorish influence in Europe is being discussed, one of the first questions that arise is, what race was they? As early as the Middle Ages, “Moors were commonly viewed as being mostly black or very swarthy, and hence the word is often used for negro,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Author and historian, Chancellor Williams said “the original Moors, like the original Egyptians, were black Africans.” The 16th-century English playwright William Shakespeare used the word Moor as a synonym for African. His contemporary Christopher Marlowe also used African and Moor interchangeably. Arab writers further buttress the black identity of the Moors. The powerful Moorish Emperor Yusuf ben-Tachfin is described by an Arab chronicler as “a brown man with wooly hair.” Black soldiers, specifically identified as Moors, were actively recruited by Rome, and served in Britain, France, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. St. Maurice, patron saint of medieval Europe, was only one of many black soldiers and officers under the employ of the Roman Empire. Although generations of Spanish rulers have tried to expunge this era from the historical record, recent archeology and scholarship now shed fresh light on the Moors who flourished in Al-Andalus for more than 700 years – from 711 AD until 1492. The Moorish advances in mathematics, astronomy, art, and agriculture helped propel Europe out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance."

quote" One need not be a linguist to see the word's evolution from the Greek "mavro" to the Latin word, "mavrvs" (actually, "mavro" in the ablative, singular, masculine Latin form). The English transliteration is "Maurus" and the plural form is "Mauri," specifically used by ancient Romans in reference to Black Africans. Writers in both Greek and Latin specifically used the term as a racial identity. In the Epitome de Caesaribus (390s AD), we learn that Aemilianus was "a Moor by race." Procopius of Caesarea (500-565 AD), a Byzantine scholar who wrote in Greek, said in his History of the Wars, "beyond that there are men not black-skinned like the Moors..."Even through the middle ages, the term (as well as the Spanish, "moro," the German "mohr," the Dutch "moor" etc.) continued to be used in reference to Black Africans. In one of the oldest Dutch texts (1300s AD), a Moor was described specifically as "black."An image entitled, "Habit of a Moor of Arabia," from Thomas Jefferys' A Collection of the Dresses of Different Nations(1757-1772)Further proof of the true definition of the Latin term "Maurus" can be found in early English-Latin dictionaries:- "Maurus" was synonymous with "Moor," "negro," and "Aethiops" in John Etick's A new English-Latin dictionary(1783)- In A new Latin-English dictionary by William Young (1810), "Maurus" is a "black Moor" - According to the Ainsworth's Latin Dictionary, Morell's abridgment by Alexander Jamieson, Robert Ainsworth (1828), "Maurus" means "black Moor"The English term "Moor" also meant "Black" in English dictionaries and encyclopaediae prior to the 20th century: - "Moor" meant "negro" or "black-a-moor" in A Dictionary of the English Language (1768) by Samuel Johnson - The Encyclopaedia Londinensis (1817) by John Wilkes lists "moor" as follows: "[maurus, Lat. Gr., black.] a negro; a blackamoor." - John Olgilvie's The Imperial Dictionary of the English Language (1882), a Moor was a "black man or negro" Somehow by the 20th century, "Maurus" and "Moor" suddenly transformed into Berber and Arab -- a grave contrast to historical precedent. " Also reguarding Jesus and religion, I want to say you better becareful when you talk about Jesus being white or using regilion around black people! The frist slave ship was the good ship jesus. Also regilion and white jesus was used to enslave and kill people of peoples descent. I am wondering if your trying to tell me that jesus was white? CNN Guest Tim Wise White: Jesus Has Been Used To Kill Millions Shows History of White Supremacy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ybefLyoBQk Also during the time of so called exdous black people rule egypt. The egyptians are nile valley people they came from sudan. Egypt is a sister city of gaint emprie once called Cush or Numbia. There is no proof of any semtic or europeans types in that part of the world at that time. Torha and the bible are plagiarism of the black egytians and Nubian cutlure. According to Dr john clerk and other scholars the anceint hebrews would have been dark skinned and have wooliy hair. qoute from google sorce " During ancient times, a Roman historian, Tactitus, recorded that the Jews were black and looked Ethiopian. No doubt, this was because Jews had mixed with black Egyptians in Egypt during hundreds of years of slavery. Contrary to popular belief, European Jews are not descended from the original Jews of Jesus' " https://www.google.ca/search?q=was+the+anceint+hebrews+waas+black&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=4KcYWNeeDsLWjwS00o2QDA

I also want add where are all the European pictures and statues I have seen that white Europeans call Moors?
 * This is all original research and therefore is not usable as a basis for edits. Rwenonah (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Problematic adds to list of Moors
Several of the people listed as "Moors" never identified (or were identified as such) during their own lives. Per wikipedia policy, we should not decide for them. I have removed Abd'l Rahman I (who identified himself as a member of the Umayyad dynasty from Syria; in other words, he was an Arab by self-proclamation) and the historian al-Qutiyya (who self-identified, as anyone with minimal knowledge would be aware from his name, as an Islamicized and Arabized _Goth_ ). Please stop doing OR and reverting to false identities. Duedemagistris (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Cite policy, please. As far as I know the policies surrounding self-identification come into play on BLP, not articles about long-dead historical figures. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add I don't care about your new message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

nice quote here on Moors " I hate to be the bearer of bad news because we know folks love to argue but debating terms that were irrelevant back then is also irrelevant right now.. let's stick to the facts !! Their skin color was brown skin and originated from a land located within the continent of Africa ..What's the real question?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.59.74 (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Berbers
IP 51.235.83.22 and likely sock IP 37.106.217.125 claim that Fletcher does not support the definition of Moors as including Berbers. The first sentence of the book, on page one, states "In the year 711 a Berber army under Arab leadership crossed the Straits of Gibraltar..." and goes on to describe the conquest of the Iberian peninsula. Fletcher goes into more detail on the "mainly Berber" army at page 19 (same link as above). Please stop altering this content and discuss your objection here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

first of all, if you want accurate sources on this topic you need to go to Arabic sources since it was part of Umayyad Caliphate but regardless of that there is NO mention on that "English" book that you claim to be more valuable than others on the definition of moors 37.106.217.125 (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually that source quite clearly indicates that the Moors included Berbers. And it does not matter what language a source is in, one language is not more accurate than the other. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Again you failed to point out where on the book he said the Moors were Berbers. btw it's the source of the info is more accurate than other not the language but then again you sound slow since you can't even read page 1 or 19 lool and i will take the information from the source anyday over a guy living in uk after 1000 years of the fall of the Moriscoes 37.106.217.125 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd advise you to refrain from the personal attacks, and by the way IP hopping to avoid a block is a rather bad idea. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2017 Moor (Muurs) and Muslims are not synonymous. Some Moors (Muurs) are Muslims. This is a huge piece of propaganda. We are going have to start from scratch.
2602:30A:2C83:9E00:CCD:AC53:4FED:A7A0 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Some Moors(Muurs) are Muslims.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Images
The first image in the modern meanings section, captioned "Sahrawi man from Western Sahara," appears to be a lightning rod for POV edit warriors of various types. We have no discussion linking this man's tribe to the Moors, other than his location. I would suggest removing this image. If clear discussion linking him to the subject were added, that may suffice. But the image alone seems to be a constant target of POV edits while adding questionable value.

The second image in that section, the "performance of Moros y cristianos (Moors and Christians) in Mexico," is of even more dubious value. The part of the picture of interest is poor quality: one figure has his back to the camera; another is obscured by the first; a third is cut off at the edge of the frame. All we can see well is a guy in a baseball cap playing a violin. The image only vaguely relates to the subject, and the photo itself obscures whatever link there is. I suggest removing this image as well. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That seems pretty obvious so I removed them. Doug Weller  talk 16:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)