Talk:Moors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lead[edit]

I have restored the lead to the status ante for the moment. I support the edit by Soupforone with more precise language and the addition of the source. But rather than battling it out in edit summaries, let's please discuss here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Laszlo, your edit summery "restoring intro, stable for months, no need to rearrange..." is not a really plausible reason for your change. Please keep the intro as it is per consistency with the rest of article. Tarook97 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
You keep switching these words and claiming "consistency". With what? For the record, the cited source, Fletcher, places Berber first, and the current form has been stable for months. Please stop edit warring. Per WP:BRD, we restore to the status ante until the issue has been discussed. You are currently at 5RR on this page today. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
With the lead paragraph and the rest of the article as I mentioned before. And again your stance on the argument is "has been stable for months". Again, please leave the intro as it is per consistency. Tarook97 (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, the rest of the article. The first section, Etymology, begins with a discussion of Berbers and mentions Arabs among other groups only at the end. Then the Modern meanings also discusses Berbers before Arabs. So your claims of consistency make no sense. More importantly, you also reverted the change of wording added by Soupforone, and its source. If you do not have a reason for removing that, it should be restored. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, that is because the etymology section deals with the word Mauri, which was a term used to refer to the Berbers, the rest of the article is consistence with the current order in the intro. As for Soupforone's edit, I thoroughly support restoring it in the etymology section and not the lead. Tarook97 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
That edit had a portion in the lead, and a portion in the Etymology section. I believe you mistakenly thought they were both in the lead. I already restored the portion that was already in the Etymology section. The more precise language that he also added to the lead paragraph, with source, should also be restored, and you have offered no reason why it should not. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone's edit is clearly cited, makes sense, and supported by every editor other than Tarook97 - a familiar situation. It should be restored at once. Editors (ie, Tarook97) also should not abuse the minor edit facility for edits they know are contentious. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Laszlo, reasons were explicitly stated in my edit summaries. Etymology has no place in the introductory text per MOS:INTRO and MOS:BEGIN. I suggest re-writng the portion in the etymology section with more 'precise language' as you have stated. Tarook97 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Those sections of the MOS don't actually support this assertion that etymology should never go in the lead. The extremely minimal amount in Soupforone's version of the lead is entirely appropriate because it is directly relevant to the cited point that the Berbers were first. It should be restored. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
MOS:INTRO states "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article" and "...avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols", MOS:BEGIN states "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific". Again, I suggest re-writng the portion in the etymology section with more 'precise language' as Laszlow have stated. Tarook97 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The addition that Soupforone made to the Etymology is the more precise language, and his addition to the lead summarizes that, just as policy advises. And his detail about the name simply describes the subject of the article, as the policy supports. Your entire argument smacks of WP:IDHT. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The edit supports the MOS:BEGIN policy "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific"? Are you sure WP:IDHT applies to me? Tarook97 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Soupforone's edit clearly works toward defining the subject, and it cites an established RS. I don't see how it is too specific. Apparently no one but you does. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

So far your arguments have been:

  • "It has been stable for months" (an argument against my edit, but not Soupforone's apparently)
  • "But the Etymology section mentions Berbers first"
  • "It supports [sic] the policy"

And now it seems you have resorted to counting noses. Please leave the lead as it is. Feel free to improve/add to the Etymology section, however. Tarook97 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

"counting noses": Otherwise known as the consensus view. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
You've done this before. It's a bit rich to complain about counting noses when what you want to do is count your own nose and stop there, no matter what anyone else thinks. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I've put it back. That they "initially were the Berber autochthones of the Maghreb" is well cited and hardly too specific for the lead. If any other editor sees any merit in Tarook97's position, we can reconsider it. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I am Sorry to Interrupt You, but... Pinkbeast, I think you've been quick to react, this is outside the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines especially you are not an administrator. Regards--Sarah Canbel (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. We'll end up with Soupforone's version, since every other editor supports it. The only question is how long Tarook will WP:IDHT. While we're waiting for that to happen - it can take a while - let's have the version that everyone else supports and that we're going to end up with. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tarook97, MOS:BEGIN is irrelevant since the lede already inaccurately claimed that "the Moors[...] initially were Berber and Arab peoples from North Africa". The key word here is initially, which neither of the cited links make. More importantly, per Leo Africanus, a native of Al-Andalus, the Moors were Berbers. He specifically distinguishes the Arabians from the Moors/denizens of the former Roman Africa Province-- "this part of the worlde is inhabited especially by five principall nations, to wit, by the people called Cafri or Cafates, that is to say outlawes, or lawlesse, by the Abassins, the Egyptians, the Arabians, and the Africans or Moores." [1]). Soupforone (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright then, we'll remove 'initially' from the introductory text for it to be "The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages, who were Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa." (Arab and Berber per consistency as stated before). Now that that's done, the details from Africanus, as I have stated (and quoted) numerous times before, should not be listed in the introductory text per MOS:INTRO and MOS:BEGIN. Tarook97 (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
No, we won't. We'll use Soupforone's version which everyone but you prefers. Please stop wasting time with this; your claim that the MOS supports your point of view is simply not correct. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The only thing those policies state about etymology is "Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology," and "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section." Describing where the name came from is not disallowed by policy, and in fact is part of defining and identifying the topic, which is stated as the primary function of the opening. Consensus is clearly against you. That isn't simply nose counting; it is noting that nobody else agrees with you. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Tarook97, I'm sorry but that won't work. Per Leo Africanus, the first Moors were Berbers rather than Arabians (his translator explains this too-- "the Mauri -- or Moors -- were the Berbers" [2]). MOS:INTRO indicates that the lead should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". As Pinkbeast and Laszlo Panaflex have pointed out, that would certainly include this important fact, which is covered in the etymology. Soupforone (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Soupforone, you do realize that the lead (and the whole article) is about the "Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages" right? Mentioning the pre-Islamic "first Moors" of the former Roman Africa Province in the introductory text is a clear violation of MOS:BEGIN "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific" and is plainly WP:IDHT. Tarook97 (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a single plausible argument has been made by the three parties until now. Removing 'initially' from the current lead and placing the order as (Arab and Berber) seems to be the only reasonable thing to do. Sarah Canbel, what do you think? Tarook97 (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Leo Africanus was writing in the medieval period. You're therefore wrong about that as well. Soupforone (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed he was, but he was writing about the "first Moors", as you have stated earlier, and this article is not about that. Tarook97 (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Sez who? The opening sentence isn't a strait-jacket; to discuss the first Moors is entirely pertinent. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Laszlo, how about mentioning that the term was first applied to pre-Islamic Berbers in the lead section, but not the opening sentence? I suggest placing the statement in the third paragraph of the lead section and going with phrase# 1 for the opening sentence. I think this will solve the dispute. Tarook97 (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Lead[edit]

Ok, the proposals for the lead are:

1. The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages, who were Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa.
2. The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages. They initially were the Berber autochthones of the Maghreb. The name was later also applied to Arabs.

All opinions are welcome. Tarook97 (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: The proposals are for the opening sentence of the lead section. Tarook97 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Phrase #1. The article concerns the "Muslim" inhabitants during the "Middle Ages", and the term 'Moors' was applied to "Arabs, North African Berbers, and Muslim Europeans". Mentioning the pre-Islamic "Mauri" or the "first Moors" of the former Roman Africa Province in the opening sentence of the article is unfitting and violates MOS:INTRO and MOS:BEGIN. It is also already mentioned in the Etymology section. Tarook97 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Phrase #2 - Per Leo Africanus, a native of Al-Andalus, the Moors were initially Berbers. He specifically distinguishes the Arabians from the Moors/denizens of the former Roman Africa Province-- "this part of the worlde is inhabited especially by five principall nations, to wit, by the people called Cafri or Cafates, that is to say outlawes, or lawlesse, by the Abassins, the Egyptians, the Arabians, and the Africans or Moores." [3]). Soupforone (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Phrase #2. The body of the article, and the sources cited, make it clear that the term "Moor" was first applied to Berbers, and later extended to cover all Muslims. Maproom (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Phrase #2 - Per the body of the article and various sources. And of course it is already mentioned in the body. Per WP:LEAD, the intro is a summary of the body; everything in the intro should be discussed in greater detail in the body. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I certainly support mentioning that the term was first applied to pre-Islamic Berbers in the lead section, but not in the opening sentence. Tarook97 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. It is presently the case that it's mentioned in the lead, but not in the opening sentence. I'm glad you've decided you're happy with the majority version after all. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Phrase #2 - the opening sentence is not a straitjacket, and the material seems entirely pertinent. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Phrase #1 - In fact, I don't like to interfere with the issue of ethnicity because Wikipedia is not the one who determines the origin of nationalities. We always find these variations on Wikipedia and social media. Here everyone wants to prove that he is right, to be more precise *who were Arab-Berber.--Sarah Canbel (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment: this is not about ethnicity. As the second paragraph of the article explains, "Moor" was never an ethnicity. The word was variously used by different peoples at different times, but was never a self-designation. Maproom (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about any other editor but I'm certainly not grinding some kind of nationalist axe; I have no known Arab or Berber ancestors, not that I've looked. Furthermore, I think Soupforone has very effectively shown that they _are_ right. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The argument concerns the placement of Soupforone's edit, not its validity. Tarook97 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
The unbolded portion of Sarah Canbel's comment does not simply concern itself with the placement, no. You may wish to reread it, although since you have agreed above that the present version is fine it seems we might conclude this RfC. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that, this RfC concerns the placement of Soupforone's edit, not its validity. And when did I agree that the 'present version is fine'? My suggestion is going with phrase #1 for the opening sentence of the article and placing Soupforone's addition in the second or third paragraphs of the lead section. I also support inserting 'primarily' into phrase #1, as I've done in the section below. Tarook97 (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
However, as you will be able to see if you review the indentation (most of us get it right, unlike you), I was replying to a specific comment and my reply is pertinent to that comment.
You said above "I certainly support mentioning that the term was first applied to pre-Islamic Berbers in the lead section, but not in the opening sentence". That is the present situation, and indeed it never has been placed in the opening sentence. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
No worries, I'll rephrase that too: I certainly support placing Soupfornone's addition in the lead section, but not in the opening sentence. Tarook97 (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Great. It is in the lead section and not in the opening sentence. Since you support what we have now, I think we can close this RFC? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
My suggestion is going with phrase #1 and placing Soupforone's addition in the second or third paragraphs of the lead section. I hope that's clear. Tarook97 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Phrase #1. It's more succinct, conveys the pertinent information, and flows better. The specifics can be explained later. Dbrote (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • 2, as more informative, but maybe avoid using "autochthones", a specialist word understood by few.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • 2 (Summoned by bot) Agree with aboves. Regarding use of word autochthones, I still remember its general definition, so I'm not too opposed to its use. L3X1 (distænt write) 11:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Phrase #2. The addition is well supported by sources in the article, and a bit of extra precision never hurts. – Joe (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Insert "primarily" into first sentence[edit]

Recent driveby edits have further confounded this issue that if the first sentence says "The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages" we get these rather spurious "Ah, but not all Moors" objections, along with the equally spurious argument above that we can write nothing at all about any other Moors because that sentence is a straitjacket.

I suggest we try and head both of these off by changing the first sentence to read: The word "Moors" refers primarily to the Muslim inhabitants...

Or perhaps simply "The Moors were primarily the Muslim inhabitants ... Pinkbeast (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I thoroughly support adding 'primarily' to the opening sentence. Since the second paragraph states that the term was also applied to "Muslim Europeans", I suggest adding it to phrase# 1 for it to read:
The Moors were the Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb, the Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta during the Middle Ages, who were primarily Arab and Berber peoples from North Africa.
Tarook97 (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


hi

The term derives from the latin term maurus. first used during the roman empire period to denote an inhabitant of the Roman province of Mauritanian kingdom (present-day north of morocco), and the kingdom of Numidia present-day algeria and old Libya. that's mean the term used before Islamic period to donate to people in Maghreb (north west Africa, exactly north Africa without Egypt).

I suggest: The Moors were the Native inhabitants of the Maghreb, and their precence during middle age in Iberian Peninsula, Sicily, and Malta. محمد بوعلام عصامي *«Simo.Boualam» (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

thanks.

I think that the meaning of the word has changed. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, Britannica defines 'Moor' as "a member of the Muslim population of what is now Spain and Portugal. Of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber) origins"[4] and only mentions its pre-Islamic use when discussing the origin of the term. Tarook97 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)