Talk:Moors

Shakespeare and 'The Moor'

The sentence at the heart of the current dispute is, 'The description Moors has referred to several historic and modern populations of Berber and Arab descent from Northern Africa, some of whom came to conquer and occupy the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years.'

Some editors have removed the term 'black African' of course, such editors are not motivated by racial hatred. Far from it. But here is the reality. The term 'Moors' is an English word that has historically been applied to various of people. Among those categories are 'black Africans'. A primary example of this description is the use by William Shakespeare, one of the most highly regarded writers in world history. The question is not whether all moors were 'black Africans', nor whether all Arabs or Berbers are black Africans. The question is whether black Africans were ever referred to by English speakers using the word 'Moors'. And, as we all know, they were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Make an article chapter (entitled, for example, "Race aspects") and bring forth pertinent arguments and references. I bet some editors will happily counter-argue if given the chance. And for the future, don`t simply insert content into the lead paragraph only because you think Shakespeare would agree. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that editors with a poor grasp of literary history may not regard Shakespeare as a useful source on the useage of the English word 'Moor'. They might fail to understand why such a highly-educated and sophisticated writer would identify the term 'moor' with the term 'black'. But frankly I don't buy it. The reality is, wikipedia is populated by hordes of racist trolls that simply hate black people.Ackees (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "Moor" originally was one of the several name of the Berber peoples (Moors of Mauritania Tigintania i.e modernday Morocco). It is only after the Arab invasion of the 17th centry , that this word was introduced into European languags as a synonym of Arab and Berber descent people from Northern Africa living there and/or in Spain. Laterly the term "Moor" became a basic synonym of "Muslim" , and this term was used for much of Muslim people (example : Sri-Lankans Muslim were called "Moors" by Portuguese settlers , same goes for Muslims of Filipino Islands , some Muslims of West-Africa were also classified as "Moors". In some European texts , Turk sailors are described as "Moors of Turkey" (i.e Muslims of Turkey). However the original "Moor" term was basically limited to North Africa and to a less extent Spain during the Moorish period. Ekarfi13 19:52 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OED ref

About the question whether "Moor" could historically also refer to black Africans in general: Shakespeare is of course not the suitable reference, but the OED is. Here's the definition:

Originally: a native or inhabitant of ancient Mauretania, a region of North Africa corresponding to parts of present-day Morocco and Algeria. Later usually: a member of a Muslim people of mixed Berber and Arab descent inhabiting north-western Africa (now mainly present-day Mauritania), who in the 8th cent. conquered Spain.
In the Middle Ages, and as late as the 17th cent., the Moors were widely supposed to be mostly black or very dark-skinned, although the existence of ‘white Moors’ was recognized [...]. Thus the term was often used, even into the 20th cent., with the sense ‘black person’.

So, yes, certainly North Africa as the primary and proper meaning, but occasional extension to the whole of Africa is well documented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly!Ackees (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Tanned?!?!

This article has virtually no credibility. At no point did "Moor" ever denote "tanned". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 08:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The reference is to a meaning of 'moreno' in Spanish and Portuguese. Do you speak either of these languages? Paul B (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak either language, but both are derived from Latin, and it doesn't take a speaker to see that rather than giving a clear definition - "tanned" is a deliberate obfuscation. "Tanned" in Portuguese translates as curtir, while in Spanish it is bronceado. The website etymonline.com defines "Moor" as such:

"North African, Berber," late 14c., from O.Fr. More, from M.L. Morus, from L. Maurus "inhabitant of Mauritania" (northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco), from Gk. Mauros, perhaps a native name, or else cognate with mauros "black" (but this adj. only appears in late Gk. 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.

The above definition isn't entirely correct because the term "Moor" was applied indiscriminately to all Muslims, at least in Spanish, from as early as the 12th century. But still, it comes closer than the article, which doesn't even bother to provide a source. Again, this passage has virtually no credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are making absolutely no sense whatever. The etymology of the word has no relevance to how one of its derivatives is now used. None of this stuff has any relevance to the sentence in question, which is not about usage in the 12th century or ancient times, but is 'one sentence in a long article describing the various usages of the word. "Tanned" is one of the modern meanings 'moreno' [1]. Why is this a problem for you? Paul B (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What is it you don't understand? The etymology is relevant because the passage outlines 'modern' interpretations without first establishing the ancient or pre-modern meaning, leaving the impression contemporary usages of the term reflect its original application - beginning with "tanned". Hence the paragraph, going on to say " ... moro ("Moor") came to have a broader meaning ..." - suggests not only that 'tanned' predates the other interpretations, but also that it naturally follows from the root. That maurus in modern terms can be conflated with 'tan' or 'tawny' is irrelevant to the root, which concerns why the term was applied to NW Africans in the first place. The passage appears to be deliberately confusing, to disassociate the semantic underpinnings of the term altogether. This can even be said of the example in Ludovico Sforza. A better example would be Alessandro de' Medici. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 32:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I said "The etymology of the word has no relevance to how one of its derivatives is now used.". You write "That maurus in modern terms can be conflated with 'tan' or 'tawny' is irrelevant to the root". That seems to be consistent with what I said, but you contradict yourself by saying "The etymology is relevant because the passage outlines 'modern' interpretations without first establishing the ancient or pre-modern meaning". As a matter of fact it does establish the historical meaning and then gives various modern usages. It does not have to be rigidly chronological, though I don't see anything ambiguous about it, since the connection between related connotations of the word Moor is already there is the lede: muslim/north african/african/dark skin/pagan. First you claimed that the word has never been used to mean tanned, now you say something different. It is entirely proper to outline modern uses and then give detail on the full evolution of the word. In fact the only really confusing and dubious part of this section is the paragraph claiming that there is an unrelated Celtic etymology linked to Gallician Korrigans that somehow became merged with the mainstream one. That's cited to the fringe continuitas website. I've no idea what your comment about Ludovico il Moro Sforza and Alessandro de Medici is supposed to convey. Why is Alessandro a "better" example? Paul B (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The leap from a geographic to color designated meaning is unaccounted for and shows that, if anything, semantic accuracy isn't much of a priority. For that alone the article lacks credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 00:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any sign that you care about "semantic accuracy", since none of your comments so far are have pointed out any errors whatever. It lists meanings and then explains them. I see nothing wrong with that. The reader would have to be rather obtuse not to get the message. Paul B (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I speak Portuguese and Spanish fluently. "Moor", in pt "Mouro" and in sp "Moro", can and often is apllied metaphorically to someone who is quite tanned. As such it is an ironic equivalent to someone who is "Moreno". By the way, tanned, when refering to skin colour, does NOT translate in pt as "curtir", but as "bronzeado" (literally, the colour of bronze). "Curtir" refers primarily to tanning (as a process to produce leather), even if it has other meanings, such as partying or even snogging. The Ogre (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I figured that out ogre. Thanks anyway. As for Paul Barlow, actually, I think I was pretty effective in demonstrating the article fails in that regard. Moor didn't mean 'tanned' in pre-modern times, and the article's attempt to leap from a geographic to color designated meaning without explaining this exposes the intentions of the authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrish Smith (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody ever said it meant tanned in "pre-modern times". The section is about the various modern usages. I have absolutely no idea what intentions are "exposed" here. It's true that every so often there appears some African-American editor who attempts to prove it means black, and is indignant by denials that it meant that in ancient times. Then every so often we get Arabic or Berber editors who indignantly deny it has anything to with being black. You appear to be of the latter indignant faction. Well, sorry, but that happens to be one of the meanings the word acquired in European usage. There is overwhelming evidence of this. There is no agenda or any evil plan to be "exposed". As far as this article is concerned, it's just a matter of the effective arrangement of information. The irony is that the only utter nonsense here is the Galician korrigan stuff with a preposterous Celtic etymology. Yet no-one seems to get indignant about that! Paul B (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The etymology listed is false, the word originates in Greek because of the Mauri tribe, not because of 'tanned' color whatever that means 90.205.203.179 (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Duke of Cologne (Köln)

The Duke of Cologne/ written and illustrated by km kupper Check out this book, saw it at Frankfurt Airport book store. Amusing insite into the mind of a "modern Moor" (Great illustrations too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.72.14 (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

St. James the Moor Slayer

...Why is that even there? Do we have Billie Jean the Anglo-Saxon Killer on their respective page? Or on any other page?

I'm not even close to being Moorish, and I just find the inclusion of that picture to be wrong. What does it add to the article? People have hated just about every group of people at one point in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.246.7 (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Think yourself lucky. There used to be four pictures of James slaying Moors [2]. Someone really liked images of Moor-smiting. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm getting rid of it. Don't really care if I get e-martyred, it's for a good cause D= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.246.7 (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just kidding, I apparently can't. Still I call bullshit. MODS COME CLEAN UP THIS MESS. speaking of strange things on Wikipedia, why is there a picture of the dead corpse of saddam's relatively "nice" son who's never concretely done anything terrible, while his bastard brother and the big man himself have relatively clean pages? that's honestly moronic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IRDX! (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• 1. I am a novice editor, please bear with me.
• 2. Does anyone else find it funny that in this painting James has a distinctly darker complexion than the decapitated Moor at his feet? I am not black, or African-American, just for the record. I think what the picture adds to the article is that the term "Moor" was clearly not always applied to specific racial or ethnic stereotypes but also to Muslims of any race, possibly specifically to those of North African origin, before becoming generalized and more muddled. Art can reflect prevailing attitudes or help to shape them, but it seems clear that within the span of a century or two the image of a light-skinned Moor was supplanted by Shakespeare's dark-skinned Moor. I think what many Westerners fail to appreciate is that throughout history many prejudices and conflicts that originated as tribal, territorial/geographic/regional, ethnic, religious AND racial, got mixed up and lumped together. In particular, the association of so-called "heathens" (i.e. non-Christians) with non-whites. One example of how these boundaries have become muddled in the extreme is exemplified by Westerner's confusion over conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, which are often described as "ethnic" but in fact are rooted in religion: Croatians who are predominantly Catholic were favored by the old Austro-Hungarian overlords, who fought the primarily Eastern Orthodox Serbs, who both fought against the Ottoman (heathen) conquest of their territories, and who both continue to fight the Muslims families who stayed after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (my favorite reference is Balkan Ghosts, by Robert Kaplan). Which came first, religious hatred or racial? The chicken or the egg? The debate is pointless. What we are left with is the fact that these two hatreds have become muddled, and smell just as foul by any other name. The messiness is part of the story.Beadmatrix (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Images

Some of them are too small and need enlargeing, for exsampel: --Wipsenade (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Aureus of Macrinus. Its elaborate symbolism celebrates the liberalitas ("prodigality") of Macrinus and his son.

Sadly, I am not a Admin, and thus can't do it my self!--Wipsenade (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No need for an admin, just change the image parameters. You might find reading WP:IMAGE to be useful. --Ashanda (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Aureus of Macrinus. Its elaborate symbolism celebrates the liberalitas ("prodigality") of Macrinus and his son.

Just remove the image size forcing, it should just be a thumb. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It reallyshouldn't be here at all. It has next to no connection with the topic. Yes, Macrinus was a Berber, but so what? Are we to have pictures of anyone from north Africa here? Paul B (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to disambiguation?

Would it be appropriate to include a link to the 'moor' disambiguation page? I ended up here when looking for information on moorlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.194.142 (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"Berber clergymen"

Augustine may have been of partly Berber ancestry, according to one source I found (through his mother Monica), but that does not mean he himself was a "Berber clergyman" - he was also of Roman and presumably Punic origin. About Tertullian, I can't find any claim of specifically Berber ancestry at all. These statements should be amended, but I can't do that, since the page is protected even for registered users - I really doubt that such an extreme measure was necessary because of just two or three users edit warring; they should have been blocked instead.--Anonymous44 (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 38.100.109.3, 22 March 2011

{{edit protected}} We are doing a project about Moors, so this article better be freakin good.

38.100.109.3 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Huh? —GFOLEY FOUR— 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible confusion

A hatnote would be useful here to point to Moor for other meanings of this word.Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A link to the disambiguation page would be useful, {{About||Arabs in Sri Lanka|Sri Lankan Moors|other uses|Moor (disambiguation)}} or something similar in place of the existing hatnote. Peter E. James (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Y Done. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

False claim about the number of Arabs and Berbers in Iberia

The article claims that " Aline Angoustures[18] says that the Berbers were about 900,000 and the Arabs about 90,000 in Iberia.." A look at that source quickly reveals the false claim. On page 17 it actually says this:

"Il faut cependant nuancer l'influence "ethnique": les conquérants étaient peu nombreux, leur occupation n'etait pas massive. Al-Andalus est peuplée de facon composite, avec nombre de Berberes eux-memes récemment islamisés (environ 300 a 400000), des Arabes (30 a 40000), mais aussi des chrétiens convertis a l'Islam, des Juifs, présents depuis l'époque romaine, et des chrétiens non convertis, appelés mozarabes. Au X siecle, les Espagnols (convertis ou non) representent sans doute encore les trois quarts de la population d'Alandalus. L'originalité profonde de cette societé est son isolement relatif du reste du monde musulman et les contacts qu'elle permet entre populations islamique, chretienne et juive."

http://books.google.com/books?id=MuaCOe7zdsIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=L'Espagne+Aline+Angoustures&hl=en&ei=gxPLTZzmJInn0QGl4cmbCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

So the actual number according to this source is much lower than whoever inserted that section in the article. You can easily multiply such sources stating pretty much the same well-established fact that the "Moors" in Iberia were only a small minorty of the population, and that the bulk of Muslims were just native people who had converted to Islam. Professor Richard Hitchcock ("Mozarabs in medieval and early modern Spain", 2008, page 2), for example, puts their numbers at less than 5% of the population of medieval Iberia:

"It is assumed that the Arabs who settled the Peninsula were numerically far fewer than the Berbers. Whatever their respective proportions, both groups would have been outnumbered by the indigenous population by a figure of perhaps thirty or forty to one. The immense majority of the indigenous inhabitants may be divided amongst those who became Muslims and those who did not."

http://books.google.com/books?id=CPAopjXXF4AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mozarabs+in+medieval&hl=en&ei=uFbLTaTWAsTu0gGFs7SSCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Please, allow to edit this obvious misrepresentation of Angoustures' statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis sinneD (talk • contribs) 03:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

berber , arab, and " black " ?

do you know that an arab can be black ? and also berbers( tuareg for example )  ? why the need to insist on the term " black " in the definition ?

the term moors never referred to any non-arabic or non-berber speaking people. it referred to berbers and arabs collectively regardless of their outward appearance . the " black " moors were arab / berber speaking people from north africa with high sub-saharan admixture ( e1b1a ) , they were still arabs and/or berbers , and should be included in the same category with them .

as far as i know , europeans never used the term " moor " to refer to the slaves that they imported from west africa . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.166.246 (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the term "Moor" was ever used for slaves from West Africa or anywhere else, but that's beside the point. In several European languages the word "moor" meant "dark skinned". That usage became less significant from the 18th century on - it's mainly associated with thr Early Modern period. But there is overwheling evidence of this, so I don't know why some editors here continue to try to deny the undeniable. Paul B (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that in German there are two etymologically related translations for "moor": Maure and Mohr. While Maure refers to any of the Islamic people of North African descent who for some time ruled over the Iberian peninsula (and many of them were not black), the term Mohr nowadays appears only in heraldic and similar contexts, such as the Sarotti moor, and is generally considered to imply that the person is (or rather was) extremely dark-skinned, male, and wearing a turban.

While our article says that the term moors comes from Mauretania, it fails to mention that the term Mauretania comes from Greek μαῦρος (black, dark, dark-skinned, dark-haired). As an example for how strong and common the association moor–black is in German when the second translation is used, the traditional (no longer politically correct) German term for chocolate-coated marshmallow treats is Mohrenkopf ("moor's kiss").

The distinction between the two terms is that it is the Mauren who conquered the Iberian peninsula and were later expelled from there, while it is individual Mohren who appear on pub signs and such (if any of these still exist) or as individuals such as Othello, the Mohr of Venice, in literature. Hans Adler 16:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with some of what's been said. The lead is currently a bit misleading; that is it presents the moors as being either Black, Berber or Arab. An unassuming reader would think that it's 33% each. The reality however is that, if there were any Black moors, very few North Africans are "Black" (maybe less than 1%). Old sources speak of the moors rather ambiguously; the term referred to any person from North Africa. If we want to be ethnically correct that would be: Berbers, Arabs, Blacks, Jews and Europeans (Christian "renegades"). I propose we just drop "The blacks" since their percentage is insignificant. Also, as the IP pointed out, there are Black Berbers and Black Arabs (In insignificant numbers as well). IMHO, this mixing comes from many western Black African nationalist who used the term Moor to designate themselves; I've even seen serious "US Black community" websites claiming that the Almoravids (and pretty much every dynasty that ruled N.Africa) were Black.

Also old sources, spoke of the moors, the Blacks and the Jews separately.

Other point, today the term "moor" is still used in countries like Mauritania and Mali; it exclusively designates non-Blacks v.s Sub-Saharan Blacks.

Other point, Today in Spain the term (Moro) is pejorative exclusively for North Africans (and not the Blacks). Tachfin (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Blacks" is not a term with any clear definition. There is no rigid distinction between 'black' and 'non-black' Africans. The only relevant point as far as the article is concerned is that the term "moor" was used historically in several ways and that one of those usages was a synonym for "dark skinned person". It's still used in the way in heraldry, for example (see Black Morrow). Obviously more detail on these shifting usages would be desirable. IMO, expanding rather than censoring content is generally the best was to go. Paul B (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone would say that there are black Arabs or black Berbers then that someone is very uninformed, Arabs are Semites, Berbers are white people "their nomads" the "Tuareg" are black only due to marrying black female slaves, and not all of them are to be fallen in this category. Arabs and Berbers too have always had black and/or European white slaves that spoke, lived, and practiced their masters cultural and linguistic habits, but they were never to be considered Arabs or Berbers they were always looked upon as "Clients". for more please check the Arabic term "Mawali". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.106.244 (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You undermine your own argument. If the Tuareg - or some of them - are black from marrying slaves, they are still black! It does not matter how they got that way. In any case this is all irrelevant, since we are discussing the historical usage of the word Paul B (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

the definition in this article is misleading . the average joe will come to the conclusion that the " moors " are the result of intermarying between berbers , blacks ,and arabs .the average joe will also conclude that the people who invaded spain were 33 % arab , 33 % berber , 33 % black since the article jumped directly from the board generic definition and use of the term " moor " to the conquest of iberia . i'm not suggesting censorship , but the first sentence should be rephrased so that uninformed people understand that " arab " " black " and " berber " are three seperate entities. because of this article , most people think that moor = mix of berber , black, and arab . just google it and see how many people give this as a definition of " moor " ( forums , yahoo answers, responses to afrocentrism )

how about this definition " in ancient history , the term moor refered to the berbers inhabitants of north africa west of the nile valley .the term changed it's meaning during various periods of time , in the middle ages it was used as a generic reference to any muslim in the iberian peninsula and north africa ,including arabs .in the early modern period , it was used to refer to an extremely dark person , and was used interchangeably with the term " black " in Elizabethan england etc... "

something like that , with a timeline . a detailed definition should be the first thing that the reader finds in this article .

ST Maurice was a moor. He was black. He was not a muslim, nor was he a berber, nor was he a part of any moorish dyansty. But because he was black he was a moor. His name meant "like a moor." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.90.119 (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Broad application of term Moor in History

I have started a new section as Van has failed R.S. So now per that tiny debate here is a R.S which states: [4]As critics have established, the term "Moor" was used interchangeably with such similarly ambiguous terms as "African," "Ethiopian," "Negro," and even "Indian" to designate a figure from different parts or the whole of Africa (or beyond) who was either black or Moslem, neither, or both. so the lead should be able to accommodate so summarized version, because i do not think it would be accurate to exclude certain groups from the varied definition of who is a Moor, esp since it has always had a broad usage. As I stated it is a exonym of "the other (non-White). and most depictions of moors in popular culture have been Black people (supported by the above) or associated with black face see BBC notes on Racist images of African people Where the word Moor is used--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead already covers that ambiguity without giving a void statement such the one you've provided which reads like "The Moors does not mean anything" and would be, in our context, factually inaccurate because of course it has a meaning and some ill-informed medieval men misapplying it does not change this fact.

Again this is not about exclusion but about giving an accurate general description of the people designated by this term. Cf my response above re depictions; adding a section about depictions and popular culture maybe a good idea but is not relevant to the question of who are the Moors which this article is ought to answer. Tachfin (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want a word with a precise and modern meaning, use Moroccan, North African, Mauretanian. The only problem with Halaqah definition is that it's not broad enough; Ludovico il Moro was not from Africa. The OED gives two definitions in one: Originally: a native or inhabitant of ancient Mauretania, a region of North Africa corresponding to parts of present-day Morocco and Algeria. Later usually: a member of a Muslim people of mixed Berber and Arab descent inhabiting north-western Africa (now mainly present-day Mauritania), who in the 8th cent. conquered Spain and notes also a semantic shift " from ‘inhabitant of North Africa’ to ‘dark brown, black’" which goes back at least to Late Latin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe we need a summarized section about other usages in the lead. Also in other languages the term evolved to designate other people, as in French "Maure" for the white-Arabic speaking inhabitants of modern Mauritania. --Tachfin (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

At least as used in Iberia, "Moor" is as broad as "Saracen". From the perspective of (pre-Islamic) Hispania, the "Moors" were synonymous with "Africans", as the Maures were the only Africans Hispanics were likely to come across. After the Islamic conquest, it retained that meaning. From the local Hispanic perspective, a "Moor" was a conqueror/colonist "from Africa", whether Arab, Berber or Black mattered not. And since these African colonists were all Muslim, and Hispanics had never seen a non-Muslim African, then there was no point of differentiaton. "Moor", "African" and "Muslim" were all synonymous terms. (Weird note: Christian Ethiopians, who were known, were not called "Moors", but "Indians"). It is only in the 15th C., when pagan Africans below the Sahara line were encountered for the first time, that there begins to be a difference. In Portuguese sources, "Moor" becomes firmly and wholly a religious term, not an ethnic one. Every Muslim is referred to as a "Moor", whether he is an Arab, Berber, Senegalese, or is half way across the continent in Mozambique, or as far as India. All were referred to as Moors. A non-Muslim black African would be called a gentio ("gentile"), never, ever, ever called a "Moor". At least in Portuguese usage, "Moor" does not connote racial differences - for that there were other terms, e.g. a Berber would be called a "Azenegue" (Sanhaja) and a Black a "Guineu" (Guinean). In East Africa, the terms of choice were "Moors" (black Muslims) and "Cafres" (black pagans).Walrasiad (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Walrasiad now we need to include this in the definition in the lead how would you suggest phrasing it to be more inclusive that it currently is? I am familar with what you are mentioning I would actually say the "narrow" understanding of Moor from my reading is recent. When you read the European missions down the coast if someone was Muslim they were a Moor. Hence the Fulani, Turaeg (who might be so-called black or so-called Berber) would all be Moors.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Walrasiad, what you're saying is true. I've also drawn the comparison with the term "Saracen" above.

There used to be an article called "Moors (meaning)" where all of this was included. This article is, however, about the modern English usage which in turn is mainly about the ancient Muslim inhabitants of Iberia, the ethnic background of whom is known and undisputed (cf. the Britannica reference). No one, in their right mind, said or is saying that these people were from Mozambique or Ethiopia as the medieval broad application of the term could have meant. I'm well aware that the meaning may have shifted through time or may have other meanings in other languages but these is duly covered in a different section of the article and can certainly be expanded.

The article says "...who came to conquer and rule the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years. At that time they were Muslim, although earlier the people had followed other religions. They called the territory Al Andalus, comprising most of what is now Spain and Portugal." Now wouldn't we look ridiculous if we implied that the people who came to conquer and rule parts of Iberia for 800 years were Senegalese/Mozambique/Ethiopian?

The issue is that there seem to be a number of users (or just one using multiple accounts/IPs) who keep adding some Afro-centrists fringe theories about the Moors; which I presume some users to be familiar with. If you look at their accounts contribs you'd notice that they solely edit this article. The ethnic background bit is sourced to Encyclopedia Britannica (more sources stating the same can be added) and if anyone is challenging this, they should at least bring a source of equal quality stating otherwise, as exceptional claims require exceptional sources. --Tachfin (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Spanish reconquista.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Spanish reconquista.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)