Talk:Moors

Moor from Mauri

I frankly don't understand why this article is separated from the one for Mauri, since the word Moor is originally from Mauri, which was used by Romans, and by the native Mauri (inhabitants of the Kingdom of Mauretania and the Roman provinces that ensued from them) to designate themselves, indicating as Gabriel Camps suggests that it may be originally a Berber word that went into Greek then Latin. The claim of the first paragraph of the article that it was an "exonym" in that sense, is not accurate, and much less is the claim that it was an equivalent of Muslim. The term was and remained much more strongly associated with Northwest Africa and its proxy regions (e.g. Andalusia) than any other place, and a cursory search in the literature is sufficient indication, that it was mainly a geographical term that was sometimes abused and generalized, but most often retained its original significance (check the number of hits for "Moorish Morocco" vs "Moorish Egypt" or any other region, on Google Books or Google Scholar for instance). --Ideophagous (talk) 10:23, 03 April 2021 (UTC+2)

This should be an article about a word, not about a people

COnsidering the dubiousness of this word as a deignation of a specific group of people, I don't think this article should contain statements like

In 711, troops mostly formed by Moors from northern Africa...

We can quote sources saying thing like that; we can say "according to so-and-so mostly formed by moors", etc. but writing as if it is a well-defined group makes no sense.

My example of improper use from the article is just one of many.--Nø (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this should be an article about a word (or a family of related words: Mauri, moros, Moors, etc.). Srnec (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I also agree. Carlstak (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Serious errors in the Article

The assumption that the sicilians were mere slaves in italy is wrong,plus some sources are Wrong and are Talking about the Slavery of sub-saharan Africans not the moors from Sicily and tunisia Osmar.aka (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

End the old agenda

The term stems from more than one word, and for at least two of those: Firstly, the Berbers are from the Northern African region. They were there, long before some of them were moved (spiritually & culturally) by Islam. They represent an advanced, educated, and highly skilled culture that has had both strong and fragmented alliances and/or reunions with various notable (and acclaimed) empires. Instead of the precarious North African description, the Berbers are simply from the Highlands or Lowlands. These people spanned from East to West throughout the Northern region, and as such Berbers had conflicting alliances (or simply, autonomously chose their own opportunities). By Spain's account, Moors were Tariq-led Berbers who had become Muslims (the purveyors of Count Julian's payback). One has to deliberately, creatively, and deceptively misconstrue the complexion of who the people of Spain were identifying as Moors. Secondly, the Berbers are descendants of the people of Canaan. It's ridiculous when artifacts depict one thing, yet it is either conveniently passed-over, subtly not shared/promoted, and/or generously altered. The "Vanquished Libyan" is an Egyptian statuette of a Berber. Considering the prominence of the pre-Islamic Berber people in the descriptive term - Moors; the selection of images either ignores the empowering and noble depictions (that I have seen) by accident or purposely contributes to an agenda.

ASIDE: Does Religion & History suffer if the physical features and complexion inconsistencies are somewhat resolved? 155.135.55.231 (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)