Talk:Moors

Moors living elsewhere in Europe, and during what periods

We should probably cover the presence of Moors in Europe outside of Spain and Italy, especially before European involvement in the African slave trade (mid-1600s). Shakespeare's Othello, via Cinthio's "Un Capitano Moro", may be based on real events of the early 1500s in Venice, and seemed not too exotic a subject for London's Elizabethan audience. Morris dancing is apparently ultimately traceable to Moors in the 1400s, in Germany and the Low Countries by way of the Mediterranean states. Readers are apt to wonder whether the frequent appearance of "Moorish" characters in British quasi-historical fiction is plausible (e.g. Camelot (2011 TV series, set in the 500s, and presumably representing descendants of Africans in the Roman army), Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991 film, set in the late 1100s), and The Bastard Executioner (2015 TV series, set in the early 1300s), both of the latter featuring travelling survivors of the Third Crusade. Jews were certainly well-established for real (and being treated punitively) in England by the time of Edward I in the 1200s, but I don't know about other Eastern, Middle Eastern or North African groups. Roma were in Germany and England by the early 1500s (persecuted throughout Europee in the middle of that century especially in England and in Scandinavia, but eventually given special travelling privileges in England before 1600). Not finding much about Muslims in Europe, outside the areas they controlled in the Middle Ages. Our own article Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe doesn't really get into it, and seems to suggest that most of these influence came via Spain, Sicily, Rome, and Greece, often by way of Europeans returning from Eastern and African travels, not from Muslims living deep in Europe, except in Spain.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Mention of Moor by Procopius of Caesarea

Why is you want to remove such old usage of the word moor that dates back to 500 A.D.???

Also stop with the false accsuation I'm assuming GOOD FAITH while you are assuming BAD FAITH, that is not good for the collaborative environment of Wikipedia, so let's discuss here Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The passage is ungrammatical to the point that it is incoherent. And it is improperly placed in the intro, per WP:LEAD. The source is also unclear and improperly cited. If you or the editor who added it wish to clean it up, source it properly, and place it in the Etymology, that would be fine. But it is so poorly rendered at this point that an editor with access to the source would be required to correct it. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You see assuming good faith is nice. Now you are learning. Well Procopius of Caesarea doesn't deal with the etymology of the word, he merely mentions them as passage in the Vandelic Wars, maybe you can incorporate a grammatical correct word so we can properly cite his work here. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

As I stated, the grammar is so poor that it is unclear what he is trying to say. The source would be necessary to render the statement properly and source it correctly. Moving the paragraph does not fix that, and I don't have access to the source. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved it and modified it and provided a source, a secondary one for that matter. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the reason for adding "The word Moor where mentioned by Procopius of Caesarea , who was born about c. AD 500 – c. AD 560." - By the way, it's "was" not "where". Doug Weller (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Moors 1.jpeg

File:Moors 2.jpeg

File:Moors 3.jpeg

File:Moor 4.jpeg

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

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

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

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

Moor (n.) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Moors chess.jpg

Moorish noblemen playing chess; from the Chessbook of Alfonso X the Wise, Castile. Dated 1283

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

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

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

Doug Weller the self appointed Wikipedia editor said:

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

You are very dishonest and disingenuous and I have done a thorough research on you and you are in fact a bigot and I am going expose you further. You must be "Jewish" (the real Jews were Moors) or something. Stay tuned...