| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | | | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Berbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab World on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | | [edit] 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)
[edit] 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 [1] 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[2][3] and Haplotype Va[4]. A thorough Y-chromosome analysis of the Iberian peninsula reveal that haplotype E-M81 surpasses frequencies of 10% in Southern Iberia.[5] As for Mtdna analysis (Mitochondrial DNA), Iberia has much higher frequencies of typically North African Haplogroup U6 than those generally observed in Europe.[6][7][8]. 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% [9] - 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’. [10] 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. [11]. 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.” [12]. 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.” [13]. - 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.” [14]. - 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)) [edit] 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) [edit] 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.[15][16][17] 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.[18] - 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.[19][20]" 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) [edit] 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))
[edit] 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)) [edit] 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)
- Wiki: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)
[edit] 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 ([1]), then warned him in a friendly manner (level 1) about his edits ([2]), warning that was immediately deleted by Seensawsee ([3]), then undeleted by me also with the addition of a level 2 warning ([4]), and again immediatley deleted by Seensawsee ([5]);
- 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 ([6]), convinced as I was that this was not a good faith editor;
- This warning was again promptly deleted by Seensawsee from his user page ([7]); this warning was then undelet by Jakezing/Ssteiner209 (saying "warnings are not nonsense" - [8]), 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" ([9]);
- 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)
[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/69.126.251.101. The Ogre (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
There are 3 questions here: - 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.
- 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).
- 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.
Hope I clarified my position. The Ogre (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC) - 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.[[10]] "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)
[edit] 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)
|
