Talk:Moors/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Depiction and Information involving Moors

I'm not the only one to complain about the depiction of the Moors on this article. The guy above me whose post was not even two months ago was also complaining. I had to restore his post by manual reverting cause I accidentally deleted it. Either way no more need to digress -- the depiction of the Moors is clearly false. I want to remove all images of the Moors except for ones that came from Islamic Iberia in order for an accurate representation of the Moors. A painting from a German artist in the 19th century is not an accurate depiction of the Moors, at all. A painting of the Moors that came from Al-Andalus is much more realistic and has much more authenticity. I am an editor that is precise and like to get the the most accurate, congruent, and logical pictures and sources for articles, and the ones currently for this page are not that great. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what other editors think about this change. I know quite a few watch the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

My recent string of edits replace the former sources that are nonexistent and go to deadlinks. It also makes it explicit that the original Moors were inhabitants of North Africa and primarily of Arab and Berber descent, but the term "Moor" in Europe referred to anybody who was Muslim regardless of race/ethnicity and the Moors who became more diverse as time went on. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you wait for the Talk Page before making changes to the article. This is how we do it. You do not make changes and then tell us what you have done. You make the suggestion, since there is no agreement. And Please show me the reference which backs up your statement. I did not see the word EXPLICIT, in the lead.--Inayity (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to discuss changes on the talk page before making edits to articles son. I know how Wikipedia works when it comes to editing, obviously you don't if you think I have consult you or wait for a consensus before making new edits. If you disagree with my edits you can revert them. Oh, you mean my sources that make it clear as the sky on a summer day in LA regarding the Moors? Did you even go to them? I pick unbiased logical sources, but the current paintings on this page consist of paintings of the Moors from hundreds of years after by German Artists and information regarding the Moors coming from sources that are nonexistent and contain deadlinks and by a known Afrocentrist whose claims consist of idiocy such as Black Olmecs, lmao — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.13.113 (talk) 07:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Once you see an edit in dispute and it has been reverted and the reason given you are required to follow Wikipedia protocol and establish compliance with wiki policy. You are supposed to PROVE your claims, not insult other references. And if you do not have any ref for your def of Moor then why are you inserting it?--Inayity (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Except my new string of edits were just reverted now, not originally. If I was to make over 3 reversions in one day after your dispute, then I would be violating WP's decree. Also me attacking citations would fall under this. I also had new references for the Moors that actually work and aren't antiquated sources that are deadlink or nonexistent or sources that lead to books by an author who has been chastised for his "psuedohistory" literature. When we deal with topics of history we need historicity and a neutral point of view, not biased editing or pictures with no validity or sources. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a ref then raise the issue as opposed to make vague references to sources. i see no dead links to non-exitenent sources. As as for books, I did not realize Afrocentrism was a crime against Wikipedia. Per NPOV, the article should be NPOV, but where will you find a 100% NPOV source? I mean a source that has no politics, no agenda to promote, may it be Afrocentric or usually the case Eurocentric. --Inayity (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The second source citation actually goes nowhere. There is also a citation that has been labelled a deadlink since July 2010 and the 5th source currently being a deadlink for me also and I have left a note there. As for the second citation and I just replaced it along with some of the article. As for the "Afrocentric" citation regarding an author has has been reprimanded for his views on history is definitely a questionable source and I have replaced it. We do not need sources that come from Afrocentrists who have been criticized for their illogical historical revisionist extremist views or Eurocentrist sources. We need reliable sources that are not questionable and good. I've made some changes to the article by making some parts of the article more comprehensible and replacing sources that are deadlink and questionable. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 08:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Do not continue to disrupt this page with your agenda of adding back in your position while deleting an established talk page stable version. And read WP:LR, and you can take the Afrocentrism issue to the relevant page, here people of all political persuasions can be used as ref, the merit of work must be disproved. they are not thrown out b/c of skin color or politics. --Inayity (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a dead link citation to one that wasn't working (not removing it) and replaced the other citation (#2) that is completely nonexistent or as you so eloquently put it "non-exitenent" -- also an author currently being used as a source who has been criticized for his extremist historical revisionist views is a [1] without doubt and should be replaced by a better reliable source like I gave. Wikipedia needs to be based off neutral editing and reliable sources, this is what makes Wikipedia articles good. Especially when dealing with a topic such at hand where the Moors were a huge part in history. We do not need sources from authors who are known for psuedohistory or ones that don't even work. What problem do you have with my last edit? Elaborate please? 70.126.13.113 (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What edit would that be. Dead links should not be deleted, I have updated the Ornament ref. and re-added your minor corrections. So we will now have to discuss Ivan Van Sertima for the 100th time. You see His point on the Almoravid inclusion of West Africans is actually accurate. No book will be 100% accurate or RS for everything. But he was correct on that point. If you have a better ref let us know! that makes that point of West Africans inclusion. --Inayity (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

My last edit. I added the dead link citation to the 5th reference, made that part more explicit there and moved a couple words around. I have no problem with "Berbers, North African Arabs, Muslim Iberians[3] and West Africans from Mali and Niger who had been absorbed into the Almoravid dynasty" or the source for #3 as you have updated it. I have a problem with a man who has been criticized for psuedohistory as a source. I replaced that source with a more reliable one but left the wording prior to it. Citation #2 does not work at all, it's not even a deadlink, it goes nowhere and I replaced it with a different source. So can you look back at my preceding edit and tell me the specific problem? Thanks. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

DOes that ref say what the sentence is saying, the same thing Van Sertima is saying about West Africans?--Inayity (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, the only thing I can find about West Africans in reliable sources is how part of the Almoravid_dynasty was in Mali, that's it. Van Sertima is not a reliable source, he's a questionable source due to his widely known extremist views. We're dealing with a huge part of history here man. We need all the historicity possible and that can only come from reliable sources and NPOV editing. That information currently is the following and nothing more. Okay, look, this dispute has been going on for awhile now and I am willing to make a deal with you by allowing that source by Van Sertima to stay, if you allow me to make my edit. Sound good? Yes or no? 70.126.13.113 (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why dont you do your edit without deleting the existing sentences, integrate something. I would rather not use Van Sertima as I cannot deny his track record is not that good. --Inayity (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)--Inayity (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the only sentence I actually got rid of was the one preceding the second source and replaced it almost entirely because the source isn't there at all. I added a few minor details on to the part regarding the Umayyad_conquest_of_Hispania and added a new source there and didn't get rid of the one currently there. So really I did my edit without deleting most stuff. Okay, so I made my edit again and would like to know your exact problem with it. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize your edit A. has no ref. B. is less nuanced that what you replaced it with. Critical info on the European usage of Moor is now missing: e term "Moors" has also been used in Europe in a broader sense to refer to Muslims, especially those of Arab or African descent, whether living in Spain or North Africa. During the colonial years the Dutch introduced the name "Moor", in Sri Lanka. The Bengali Muslims were called Moor. So this is the issue. You can integrate both positions with out deleting sourced content which is important. Moor is used beyond Islam see Sri Lanka!--Inayity (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually forgot my reference, my bad. It has been added now and it states how people in Sri Lanka have been called "Moors" in my source too. Check the new source I added man. Generally speaking when people use the term "Moor" they are referring to medieval inhabitants of the Middle Ages though and sometimes just a Muslim in general. Either way, source has been added.

I also want to point out that the current sixth reference goes to this and not to an actual source regarding information on the Moors. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

2-1 that you r contributions are not an improvement, please accept this before continuing to revert. You can now use request for comments to build agreement or request input from others--Inayity (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Yes, another editor feels my edits are "not an improvement" but just because there is a 2-1 count does not mean consensus has been made from all sides. Sure, another editors sentiments are of importance, but that does not mean a majority count by 1 point is a substitute for discussion. I would like to hear his opinion on why he dislikes my edits. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that your edits actually are not an improvement and poorly written. No need for democracy when you make the article less professional.--Inayity (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I make the article "less professional" yet citations currently don't work and the ones that do go to sites that are deadlink or have nothing to do with Moors. You add a picture of a Moor that has absolutely no historical authenticity to the slightest as he was fiction and the painting is based off a fictional story. My attempts at delineation for this article regarding information and pictorial representation of the Moors for this article is apparently "not an improvement" even though you can't seem to give me a logical reason how on my last edit.

Oh wait, another editor came along and gave a poor reason but since you think consensus on Wikipedia works by voting, you decided to stop your attempts at logicality. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but consensus doesn't consist of you ignoring every other editor who disagrees with your edits, either. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Who have I ignored? I've been on this page discussing this article for quite some time and been willing to converse with other editors on it. I haven't ignored anybody as far as I know and if you can tell me who I have ignored, go ahead please. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You've ignored every other editor apart from you. You have never, as far as I can see, got any other editor to agree to the changes you make. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't "ignored" them at all son. I've been conversing with them on here and wanting to know their specific problem with my edits. Actually Inayity has agreed with my edits to a certain degree and some minor changes have been made -- but he can't give me a reason for disliking my last edit for this article regarding information of the Moors. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

New edit has been made to the article by thyself as the previous one currently contradicted itself. It said "The term "Moors" has also been used in Europe in a broader sense to refer to Muslims, especially those of Arab or African descent, whether living in Spain or North Africa." and then it said "Moors are not a distinct or self-defined people" and then it said "

were initially Arabs and Berbers" so I rectified this article by replacing a source that doesn't work, at all. I then moved some words around by placing them in the correct chronological order and got rid of a few words also. If you disagree with this edit, please tell me the specific problem. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Before editing the article please get some argument here first. It is going around in circles. And I will just revert the changes or request the page be protected. You can use a sandbox to experiment. --Inayity (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Argument about what? I made a new edit and I didn't revert the article back to my prior edit. What problem do you have with my new edit? Tell me, go ahead. Oh wait, you don't have a logical reason to revert, just like you haven't gave any rational reasons for reverting the last time I made an edit for information on this article. You say "it is going around in circles" but it's not technically edit warring so it's fine, but it is starting to get ridiculous and this is your fault. Why? Cause you can't give me any cogent reasons for your continuous reverting. It seems to me you can't just take an L plehboi. So I'll ask you once again: what problem did you have with my last edit? 70.126.13.113 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Several days have gone by and Inayity has still failed to give me a logical reason for his reversion. I changed the article basically back to how my previous edit was and made some minor changes too. If you revert my edit again without giving an actual reason then I will report you as you have failed to give me a specific reason twice then. So if you have a problem with this new edit, please tell me why. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you have no consensus for the changes. I'm not surprised Inayity hasn't replied, since you've got further and further from any actual comment on the content of the article. I'm not even sure "It seems to me you can't just take an L plehboi" is in any language I speak. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you not even familiar with any of Wikipedia's basic editing policies? This is the second time I have been reverted without a specific reason why. One from you and one from Inayity. If it happens again from either of you without a logical reason, expect a report. Also, you ain't familiar with ebonics bruh? Sad. Regarding the content of the article in my new edit -- what about it? It contradicts itself the current way it is. Multiple sources don't work and I fixed them by replacing them and I formatted the article correctly. My changes were explained a couple posts up, but I keep getting reverted for no valid reason. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The current version is far better and more encyclopedic than your version. The ref in the current are better than ref to another encyclopedia. please read also WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and WP:LISTEN we cannot burden ourselves with replying to every poor edit you make. But you can request for comments! if you feel your 'version' makes the article better. The lead is fine as is. --Inayity (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The page you link to as a "basic editing policy" is not a Wikipedia policy, something stated clearly at the top of that page. Consensus is; and a start to consensus would be to find any other editor who likes the changes you propose. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just curious Inayity did you even take a gander at this page itself breh? You are the epitome of a disruptive editor and fall into the #4 aspect of that primer. It explicitly says "a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;" which you do perfectly. How many times must I ask for a specific problem with my edit? You obviously object my edits cause you revert them but when I ask you for a problem with my edit not one logical reason. It is quite clear you been ducking this question nonstop son. My edits have been reverted for the most idiotic reasons and even one that is advised not to do on here. Just curious - how is the article better the current way it is? It's better with sources that go nowhere and a reference that does go somewhere goes to a page with no connection to this article? It is better with poor formatting, contradictory, and references? Hilarity at its finest here brehs. I'm just curious and I'll ask once again... WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM WITH MY LAST EDIT? 70.126.13.113 (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that Inayity discussed your changes on several occasions; that they decline to do so again, now you are not discussing the content of the article at all, is not remarkable. It doesn't seem to me that they improve the article either; I'm generally leery of edits that remove a reference that happens not to suit the editor, and I really can't see any reason to remove Othello, who's enormously well known by virtue of being a (fictional) Moor.

I also would appreciate it if you would not address me or other editors as "breh", "son", etc. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes he has discussed the article on several occasions, it regards reversion and not telling me a specific problem with my edits as I have asked a couple times now. You reverted my article last time -- what problem do you have it? Tell me. Oh wait, your reason for reversion was one not advised to do on WP. Lol at "now you are not discussing the content of the article" so me in post above talking about formatting, references, and contradictory in the article isn't discussing it? Sorry if you don't like my Ebonics bruh bruh, but being from America it is a variety of American English that a lot of people use. I'm still waiting for a specific reason for not liking my last edit, besides Othello which was really just a small part of the edit pictorial wise, but information wise I would like to know what's the problem. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I described my problem above; I don't see that your edit effects any improvement to the article, it removes a reference for no reason, and it's pretty clear you've got an axe to grind. I am not taking exception to your use of this dialect - but that you seem to be using it in a condescending fashion, consistent with the rest of your tone. Or perhaps you will tell me "plehboi" is a term indicative of deep respect? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Son it's just common slang for me, not any disparagement that is overt or subliminal with it. There is no "axe to grind" here either breh and there never has been. Me removing references were for valid reasons such as updating a reference that went to a wrong link by replacing it with a new source that goes to the same book it referenced but an actual working link with the exact same book and a page number there too. Article is formatted incorrectly and most of it comes off as redundant and contradicting, as I already pointed out. My editorial is not to push some subliminal POV behind it or vandalize pages -- my edits are trying to rectify problems within articles by replacing sources that are problems (antiquated, not working, biased, etc) and by putting images that are congruent with the article, and formatting the articles correctly too. Your biggest problem with my last edit was removing references even though it was quite clear why I removed them and have explained it several times and the Othello picture? Yet you didn't explain that -- you reverted it for a reason not advised to do on here. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please let me know if you are, at some point in the future, willing to discuss things in a civil fashion without using condescending terms, after apologising for your use of them to both me and Inayity. I've had quite enough of it. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Son they aren't condescending terms to me, it's common slang. If you interpret them as "condescending" then that's not my fault homie. I'm willing to discuss things in a civil fashion and have been ever since this new topic on talk page started. I've made edits to the article and my edits have been reverted several times without elaboration and for the most trite and idiotic reasons and for reasons not advised by Wikipedia. I'm willing to continue this discussion, so go ahead and tell me what problem you had with last edit after elucidating it in my last post. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not your son, your breh, bruh, homie - or "plehboi", whatever one of those is, although not even Urban Dictionary seems to know that one. I think it is perfectly clear from your tone that you do not intend those terms to be polite; in particular, I'm not aware of any English-speaking country where addressing someone as "son" is not condescending (and quite inappropriate for half the population). I have already described my issue with your edits clearly and concisely, and I don't intend to do so again until you address me in a civil fashion. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

How you interpret those terms is different from thyself. I'll stop using them though cause you apparently aren't a fan of em. So can we can get back to discussion about the article now? Hopefully. So what exactly was your problem with my last edit? You said you didn't like how I removed Othello (a new edit to this page) and removed references and replaced them with new ones or updated broken ones. That was your problem with last edit? If so, why didn't you come on the page and state that before giving me the most pathetic reason for reversion? 70.126.13.113 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

New edit has been made to this article which is basically the same as my last editorial except adding and remaining a few things. I have left the picture of Othello on the article while removing a picture of this Moroccan sultan as the Moors were medieval Muslim inhabitants of certain areas -- that man is not a Moor he is a sultan of Morocco from the 19th century and has nothing to do with this article. Sure the Moors came from Morocco but not much of a relation to a Moroccan in the 19th century as it even explicitly says so in the beginning of this article the Moors were medieval Muslim inhabitants, not 19th century ones. I also added a date to a picture in the article as it is best to tag pictures in this article with a specific time period of their creation for exactitude as we do not want to cause confusion. Sources have been updated by replacing ones that go nowhere and by

amending one that was going to a incorrect link. I formatted the article correctly by editing it accurately in chronological order and removed contradicting parts of the article and redundant sentences. I decided to remove another topic on the talk page for space as this topic covers that former conversation by the way. If you have a problem with my new edit on the article, please elaborate why on here and be specific, thank you. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again Inayity has reverted me by deeming me a "disruptive editor" without discussing the article on the talk page and failing to elaborate on his issues with my edit. He is the disruptive editor and falls into #4 of that primer perfectly. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again WP:DISRUPTSIGNS seek a Request for comments, we do not have to go over it again and again. Your version is weaker and less encyclopedic. "Moor is a term" used by WHO? Seek agreement for your edits as a measure of quality control. No one else agrees with them. --Inayity (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are the disruptive editor here as I have just pointed out. As for "your version is weaker" based off what? Be specific, why do you keep ducking this question? Why do you keep ignoring me when asking for a reason as to why you dissent with my edit? As for "no else agrees with them" it is advised not to revert because of no consensus but to revert for a specific reason as to why you dislike someones edits. Also "Moor is a term" who are you quoting here? You're not coming off as very articulate or making any sense here for that matter. 70.126.13.113 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So Inayity you gonna tell me what your problem is with my last edit or continue to ignore me and be a disruptive editor? 70.126.13.113 (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I find one part in the lead to be quite unsound and it's the "especially those of Arab or African descent" part which comes off as redundant and vague. "African" is a very vague term and can refer to North African Arabs, Caucasian Berbers, or an Angolan Negroid and is not a specific denotation. "Arab" is also vague, but not as much as "African" is, either way it seems redundant to put that part there as well cause in the same paragraph as it states the Moors specific racial composition with more detail. I feel like that part would just be better suited for removal from this article in order to avoid some confusion. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As an African person I am not too sure how Vague the word African is. I know when at any airport and someone "says the African guy over there with the suitcase" it is extremely clear to most people on planet Earth. We know without much thought they are not referring to the Arab Swahili guy, the Libyan, the White South African, or the Indian from Durban. So African usually refers to the 80% racial group that occupy Africa. And the reason it is here is b/c editors, such as myself feel (rightly so) that the habit of Eurocentric washing Africans out of history should not go on. --Inayity (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well considering the fact that I attempted to look at your sources for that paragraph on that sentence and they don't work, so that part just comes off as OR editing right now and this article does seem a bit over the place. I also am no 'Eurocentrist' for certain; also when you say "washing Africans out of history" you're referring to the Moors being black? I'm sorry, but the Moors were not originally black (it even states that on this article currently) but Afrocentrists have done a good job at pushing the fact that they were and someone has complained about Afrocentrism on this article before which you defended to a certain degree and Afrocentrism doesn't have the best reputation for history. If anything this page definitely has some POV Afrocentrist undertones (not the first editor to see this as aforesaid) but I would like to help clean up this article with you in the best way possible with editing. Maybe we could start by getting these sources to actually work? ShawntheGod (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how "whitewashing history = "Moors were black debate", the ref speak for themselves. And my position is Moors were a mixture of various different people, including by not exclusively Native Africans Aka Black people(now that is a vague term). If you take a look at Afrocentrism you would see I am certainly no fan. But Poole also repeats that Moors was a way of discussing the people today you call "Black"--Inayity (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the only source I added was Poole and Maria. The rest came with the article and have always been a hot topic. Review the last 4 years of war over the issue of race. Call the current lead a compromise. --Inayity (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well you just said responded to my post meaning with basically 'when I say "African" I'm referring to black Africans' so know I know what the "especially those of Arab or African descent" means now. When you say the "Moors were a mixture of various different people" it's entirely correct. They were not some homogenous ethnicity and they never were from their beginnings as they were Arab-Berbers, not just Berbers or Arabs. The problem is the "especially of Arab or African descent" part just comes off as POV editing and redundant. I look at two particular paragraphs in this article (3 and 4) that regard the ethnicities of the Moors and while I can agree with it to a certain degree, it comes off a bit implanted chronologically and the sources don't even work mostly and one that does is Afrocentric nonsense that needs to be replaced apparently anyways. Perhaps you could get the correct links going for those sources that don't work? Cause looking at those sources that are linked improperly (besides that) they seem fine. Also looking at the history of this talk page and the article real quick (as you just said) it's the same racial arguments over and over. What would be the best way to settle this? Hmm, by getting rid of "especially those of Arab or African descent" for starters cause that's just gonna be seen as some POV editing and it can be seen as vague too and redundant cause the Moors racial composition are elaborated right after that sentence anyways. We can also make the depictions of the Moors on this page better by getting rid of unnecessary pictures that I see and false depictions of the Moors that hold not even the slightest historical validity and are ahistorical. I think that could be good for starters, yes? ShawntheGod (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how you conclude getting rid of it will help, when that was the compromise. YEARS of compromise per the talk page. So I will not go through that entire process every 2 weeks--sorry. It has been discussed to death, and it totally fine to state that the term was mainly used for Berber, Arab and African Muslim groups. Have no idea how that could be now a problem.--Inayity (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A good way to settle it would be to leave it well alone, especially as a new editor; there are probably better places to start than here, especially trying to repeat changes from an editor who resorted to meatpuppetry. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to repeat changes from the creator of this topic and what the IP has proposed on here is not something new either as I see other topics on here basically stating the same thing. I do not want to get rid of paragraphs in their lead in the entirety or anything, like others have done. I'll make my plans to this article more explicable for people to understand so they can see what I would like to do:

1)I would appreciate it if the citations on here were linked properly to their sources. We need these to work for people to understand them. I honestly don't see how anyone could have a problem with this edit proposal.

2) I would like to merge paragraph 4 with paragraph 3 and add a little more detail. Inayity posted earlier "Why dont you do your edit without deleting the existing sentences, integrate something" which is exactly what my edit would be with a little emend too.

3) I would like to add some more pictures of Moors in Al-Andalus as they seem to have more much historicity than ahistorical pictures I see on here and images that are not pertinent to this article.

So what exactly would you think of these proposed changes? ShawntheGod (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure no-one would object to improving the way references are cited. Do you have a specific example of a change you might make? I quite like paragraphs 3 and 4 the way they are, actually; I don't think it's a chronological reversal because para 4 is leading up to the modern term.

Do you have some examples of pictures that might be added? Contemporary pictures of a Muslim state are always going to be a tricky one. I'm very twitchy about removing "ahistorical" pictures; before we know where we are, we'll be back to Othello again. Some of the labelling of pictures as "not pertinent" seems to have been in error; for example, the 1845 picture of Abd al-Rahman is next to the section describing more wide-ranging use of "Moor" later in history. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

To Inayity who just said "I have read the book, it does not say that in the book" I was referring to my source where it states the Moors came from North Africa (which is true) and a decent amount of them (the Berbers) came from Morocco. I've also been trying hard to find the book by Maria in its entirety, but can only find certain pages. It does state the Moors were initially Arabs and Berbers in the book and it does state they came from North Africa actually. I did not see the point of reversion for my last edit. ShawntheGod (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

At the end of that sentence is a ref, the ref does not make that claim at all. If you have a big point then add a big ref that says something as significant as Most of them came from x,y, and z. b.c then it can be called if they are mainly from a particular country (which did not exist back then) then we need to be clear what we are telling the reader. --Inayity (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

My source states the Moors came from North Africa with the Berbers coming from Morocco and the Berbers were a large portion of the Moors make up and in the book by Maria it even elaborates on the Arab/Berber feud that occurred for aristocracy too. Addendum: source is now linked and is working properly to the book by Maria that shows the Moors were initially Arabs and Berbers at the time of the conquest of Iberia and that part has been on this page for awhile now. Just making sure the source is now working. I unfortunately cannot find the book in its entirety, but only small samples or else I would have more sources linked correctly. ShawntheGod (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A scholarly source would be appreciated. Spanish web does not look RS--Inayity (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I concur, it's not the best source in the world, but I have a source from National Geographic that states the Moors were a North African people, so that Spanish-web source is gone and replaced by the epitome of a reliable source. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Does NG say they were Originally from this place or that? And We need a scholarly source, not even that NG article of images. That means a book by an expert on the subject. Not 4 lines and some pictures which is discussing Moorish Architecture not origins of the moors. --Inayity (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "The ref does not say that" it states the Moors were a North African people. So if they were a North African people, where do you think they originally came from? Jupiter? The obviously originally came from North Africa, but as time went on they included people other than North African Arab-Berber descent. NG is the epitome of a reliable source and falls under "the most reliable sources" category. The Moors were a group of people from North Africa that were initially of Arab and Berber descent, your source from Maria backs up the Arab and Berber part, my source backs up they came from North Africa. Where exactly are we dissenting here? ShawntheGod (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Did it say Originally, because to say Jews are from Israel and Jews are originally from Israel is a different statement. African Americans are from America, originally they come from AfriKa. origins of Moors needs a scholarly source. And if it was so clear you would find the opinion in many books by experts. --Inayity (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you like me to put "they came from North Africa" instead of "originally came from North Africa"? I can do that, if the word "originally" bothers you that much. We all "originally" came from Africa if you wanna get technical about it. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I want you to leave it as it is b/c such additions are neither ref, nor improvements to the article. I am struggling to see why we need to say anything else than what the current sentence CLEARLY elaborates on. --Inayity (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The current sentence does not state the Moors came from North Africa, which they did. It states they were initially Arabs and Berbers, but did not initially come from North Africa. The Moors came from North Africa and that is important to note. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The Moors were initially a people who came from North Africa of Arab-Berber descent and your source supports the latter and mine supports the North African part. NG is the epitome of a reliable source and is one of the most reliable possible as it falls under "the most reliable sources are" primer due to the fact is is a respected publishing house magazine. You had a problem with the word "originally" so I left that out. I don't think there is anything we dissent about here. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit hours later? You also have 3 reverts currently. There was nothing wrong with me putting the Moors came from North Africa. They came from North Africa initially and were of Arab-Berber descent, your source states the latter. My source (NatGeo) is as reliable as it gets. Not only does Natgeo support my view but so does just about every other valid source in the internet support it whether they be tertiary or not. You reverted for no reason too. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Note — ShawntheGod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Absolutely ridiculous revert and Inayity feels National Geographic is a bad source? Hilarious, even though it isn't in anyway possible. Fine, I'll cite work by the late historical scholar Richard A. Fletcher then. His views are no different than any other valid sources, but apparently Inayity isn't a fan of respected publishing magazines or academia. The citation by Richard states exactly what plenty of other valid sources state about the Moors coming from North Africa and your own source by Maria states the Gibraltar part. ShawntheGod (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

About this recent image editorial: [2] Tariq was a Muslim general and one of the most important Moors there was, he needs to be on here and I replaced the utterly ahistorical late cherrypicked image of the so called "black Moors" that has absolutely nothing do with this article. It's on par with me posting a picture of Muslims centuries after the Moors were gone from Iberia with lightskin and Caucasian features and putting 'white Moors playing chess' or ones with Mongoloid features and putting 'Asian Moors playing chess' it's almost completely extraneous to the article and barely pertinent in anyway. Tariq is arguably the most important Moor, he needs to be on here and not some random painting of Moors created hundreds of years after Moors reign. ShawntheGod (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What exactly seems to be the issue here? The discussion appears to have gotten unnecessarily personal; naming calling is uncalled for and makes it difficult to agree on anything. With regard to ShawntheGod's comment above about "African" being a vague term because the continent of Africa is inhabited by a variety of different populations, he is correct. As I understand it, depending on the context, "Moor" referred to individuals in Al-Andalus of Berber, Arab or West African heritage, or mixtures thereof, who were all part of a larger Islamic cultural heritage. Inayity doesn't appear to take exception to this, though. Is the issue, then, over which of these (or other) groups produced the first "Moors"? Or something more basic perhaps? Middayexpress (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, I wish it was something as important as that. Shwan the god formerly know as ip 70 has for months be trying to make more a term exclusive to Muslims. The article is discussing plural def of the term Moor. And the origins of the Moor is not something I have fought over. As I see no ref which says they first came from this country or that. Nor have I suggested they were of one race. --Inayity (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Moors Information and Imagery

I'll be using this topic to discuss the article and edits I plan on making or make. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Our agreement is for you to discuss edits and gain agreement before making them. You do not need my agreement you need to gain consensus if it is a controversial edit from more than 1 editor. Your options are many: Request for comments, invite editors from Wikipedia Africa to contribute, etc. But these process come before making changes that will cause an edit war. --Inayity (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You said "discuss any controversial edit" on the talk page. I think an edit that is "controversial" is a major edit, not a simple picture addition or replacement. Either way, one of the sources we agreed on (the one by Richard Fletcher) refers to the Moors as medieval Muslims. I think we can replace the first source with a source we both agree on, as the current source only mentions an excerpt of "in medieval times most Africans were called Moors" whereas the one by Fletcher mentions how they were Medieval Muslims, like the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Then keep both, I am in favor of the notable work by Poole and it frames the issue of the name. There is absolutely no RS issue with Poole.--Inayity (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who previously appealed for meatpuppets should make any change to the article. Clearly not acting in good faith. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"no RS issue with Poole."

There is, but I'd rather forget about that for a second cause nowhere in the book [3] does Stanley Lane-Poole write "In ancient times, Africans in general were called Ethiopian; in medieval times most Africans were called Moors; in modern times some Africans were called Negroes.", at all. As a matter of fact the only time he uses the term "medieval" is once, which is apart of a persons name. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

How many books on Moors have you actually Read from cover to cover? If you do not understand the ref, or have any doubt, just trust that some of us putting these ref in there are well versed in the contents of these books we use. AND, as opposed to taking stuff out (without agreement, which you agreed to do) use WP:RS, you can use your energy there --Inayity (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

He never said that in his book. I just proved that to you right there in the post above. That can fall under libel which you're supposed to delete when identified. We also agreed to discuss "any controversial edit" and I did not see that as controversial. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree now go here and see what others say WP:RSN and we do not need to discuss it anymore. Until you have proven your case do not continue to alter ref of controversial content which will only lead to edit war. I think you should read more about WP:LBL and if it applies to your claim.--Inayity (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Now what I will not do is have the book in-front of me and spend my time fighting with you over its contents b.c of the fact that probably none of these books you have read. And there is a difference b/t reading a book and knowing the subject and googling orphan sentences. --Inayity (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic has been made on the sources noticeboard. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Inayity a source we already agreed states the same thing about the Moors being medieval Muslims and I can put the direct link and page number up, right now. Also, that's a republished version of the book in 2013 by Black Classic Press which was republished way after Stanley's death. Also, Stanley did not put that part down either, another person did and the copyright has expired for Stanlety's original work and this could libel for all we know. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What is confusing me is your issues with the source, because far too much energy is being spent to get rid of it. Which raises other concerns, what exactly is your underlying politics? Is it to remove Native Africans as included in the def of Moor, is it to restrict the def of Moor to People from North Africa. I do not get it. B.c I do not think any of the objections you have just raised actually matter or challenge us using that book. --Inayity (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone who has called for meatpuppets should not edit the page. If you persist in doing so I'll file an SPI. It's as simple as that. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"I'll file an SPI" you do understand what sock puppetry is, right? It says WP:SOC "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose" an IP does not fall under an account. Also, you could only prove I made those posts on 4chan by getting them to tell my information, which is against the rules of 4chan. That site is filled with trolls, not exactly the best way to prove I was using meatpuppets. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you or are you not 70.126.13.113? Simple question. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You keep claiming I have a POV User talk:Inayity, so why can't you tell me what it is? Because I have none, the only thing I want is for this article to have as much historicity as possible, that includes reliable sources. Not the use of extreme Afrocentric sources, not the use of pictures of the so called "Moors" created hundreds of years later. I want the truth to be stated and that means getting rid of material that is OR. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone with such a single focus and single usage has a POV. not the 1st time. If you are worried about Afrocentrism I do not think the statement about Inclusion of Africans in Spain would bother anyone who knows the topic--be serious now. --Inayity (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have two minor problems with this article and it's the first source which has been deemed unreliable by me and another editor. I also have a problem with the "especially those of Arab and African descent" part of the sentence. The term "African" is vague as another editor has agreed, we also know who the Moors have been referred to as it states it in same paragraph in two sentences away. So that part seems redundant, possible POV too, as we have no idea what the exact demographic percentage of the Moors race was or statistics for reference to them regarding race, so we don't know if they were especially black, Arab, or white. It seems best to just remove that part. So besides those two things, the article seems fine. ShawntheGod (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Moors below the Senegal River

I just added this:

or even residents of [[Sub-Saharan Africa]] in general.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Imaging the Moor in Medieval Portugal|author=Josiah Blackmore|pages=27-43|journal=Diacritics|volume=36|number=3/4|date=Fall-Winter 2006|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204140|quote=[[Gomes Eanes de Zurara|Zurara]] refers to the Sub-Sarahan Africans inhabiting these lands [below the [[Senegal River]]] alternately as ''negros'' (blacks), ''guinéus'' (Guineans), or ''mouros'' (Moors).}}</ref>

I found it while looking for a better source for the phrase right before it about the Almoravid dynasty. The source only quotes the one guy, Zurara, for this usage, but also doesn't find the usage remarkable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. It's about time someone did some source-chasing (he says, hypocritically). Thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice catch, my recent edit [4] removes the source by Ivan as he has been deemed unreliable by me and other editors, also the new source states the exact same thing he was saying and the "West African" syntax can be removed now. ShawntheGod (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your passion to remove has been part of your agenda for months! And that worries me.--Inayity (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a part I wanted to remove because it holds no validity. Ivan has already been deemed unreliable and you see that. The new source replaces Ivan and states the same thing, except Sub-Saharan Africans in general and not just West ones. So why revert? We already agreed to stop the edit warring, that was not controversial my friend. I have other editors who back my sentiments of Ivan up. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Almoravids in the lead

Per WP:INTRO: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Note that Almoravids are not mentioned at all in the article. Therefore there's no real reason to mention them in the lead. I propose that this overly specific detail be excised until such point as there is actually material in the body of the article that it is to summarize.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree and the source has been deemed unreliable by me and other editors. The West African Almoravid syntax does not need to be there and the new source says basically the same thing, except refers to Sub-Saharan Africans in general, and not just West ones. ShawntheGod (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The above rule does not preclude the information being added to the lead, b/c we are developing the article top down. It has been in this article for YEARS. As we are discussing Who the Moors were that one little line is explaining the inclusion of West Africans. The fact that the word Almoravid is not mentioned elsewhere carries no H20, since I could easily replace it with Moorish Empires, and it would still be true--but not as specific. In any event if LEAD is the issue then why not move it? --Inayity (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The material is OR due to the fact Ivan is not reliable. The new source replaces Ivan and states basically the same thing, except Sub-Saharans in general, not just West Africans. You have a problem with the removal of OR and replacement in what way? ShawntheGod (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should spend time reading what OR is. B/c a source is probably not RS does that now mean by deleting the ref it becomes OR? Strange. b/c I am not sure that is how it works. The statement is already tagged. That is what tags are for. The outcome of the RS is not concluded. And While Van Sertima is not RS for Olmec civilizations, the issue of Moors must be weighted on its own. And I have not seen many Peer reviews complaining about that sentence. --Inayity (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Were you not aware of me making a thread on reliable sources noticeboard for this article? Sertima getting deemed not reliable here and the definition of WP:OR is "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" so it's quite clear that the material being substantiated by Ivan would fall into that. Would you like me to make a thread on the no original research board now? I will if you insist, because you are so stubborn when it comes to the removal of a clearly OR material with an unreliable source for some reason. I mean, it's not like the new source and material states the exact same thing about the usage of the term Moor except towards Sub-Saharan Africans in general, not just West Africans, right? Oh wait, it does. You also have this thread (started by another editor) who doesn't believe the Almoravid West African part should be in the article. So not sure what you mean with "many peer reviews complaining about that sentence", at all. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As a compromise, why don't we move the material about the Almoravids down into the body into a new sentence. Then @ShawntheGod:'s edit will bring the existing sentence in the lead into compliance with WP:LEAD since, as has been stated repeatedly, the new material and source does imply that that claim is true, so acts as a summary for it. Then we can discuss the sourcing and the appropriacy of the Almoravid material separately, which was my intention in starting this new section anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine with me to move down the material about the Almroavids into a new part, since it does not seem apposite for the lead anyway. We can then discuss that material being OR (I'll probably a thread about it on the noticeboard) and then make some minor edits to the lead too. If you wanna move the Almoravid part to another body, I'll then make a minor change to the lead which incorporates the most important material being included to the lead in a concise way. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll wait till others comment before moving the material. A noticeboard thread will, sadly but probably, be necessary.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, WP:NORUSH, we can just chill for a little. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My point is if it is too detailed just move it into the body. These are not statements that are controversial, and a link to the RS should have been posted here. --Inayity (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, so how about if we go back to ShawntheGod's version of the lead for now and you find a place in the body of the article where you think the Almoravid material is appropriate and put it there?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In theory that sounds cool, but we all know that once it is deleted no one is going to remember to go and put it another place in the body. Let us see what Pinkbeast suggest.--Inayity (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's why he said "you find a place in the body of the article where you think the Almoravid material is appropriate" as in he's telling you that you can move that material elsewhere, not delete it and then incorporate it later (which is how I believe you interpreted his post), but you move it to another part of the article right now. ShawntheGod (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Do both edits at the same time. It would be best that way.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I think alf laylah wa laylah is correct here. Move the material if need be. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem with this edit?

I thought this edit by ShawntheGod improved things. First of all, if there's a dispute about the sources for the Almoravid dynasty thing, this is a reasonable way to dodge it. West Africans are a subset of people who live below the Senegal River, so the Blackmore source naturally supports the statement that they were called Moors. Since Blackmore says that black Africans were called Moors, why distinguish the subset of them that's discussed in a disputed source when we can just cite the superset to a source that seems to be acceptable to all? I'm not going to revert because everyone's evidently a little touchy right now, but I did think that the edit reverted by Pinkbeast clarified things and was a good edit, supported by the source.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Please revert me, then. I respect your opinion on the subject. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, but you really do think it's better? I don't want to seem to be taking sides in something I don't understand.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As I see it, ShawntheGod has solicited meatpuppets and has no place editing the page. Ideally, they would describe their preferred edits here and they would be discussed. Failing that, the next best idea is that their edits to the page are discussed post-facto by more experienced editors. Your argument above seems reasonable, and you have actually chased up some sources to improve the page, so I think you are qualified to comment; obviously, I'm open to persuasion, but as it stands I do think it is better.

What I'm saying is that, at the moment, I am convinced by your argument, so I do think that version is better. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll try to look over the article a little more. I just came to it from whatever noticeboard that was it popped up on.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

‎Inayity, what's the problem with the edit? Why revert with no edit summary and without joining the ongoing discussion here?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

please refrain from making this article a problem. We have discussed controversial changes need agreement yet despite me being a main contributor i have been involved in no agreement while radical changes are being made. this is how serious edit wars occur as a single agenda editor has a POV push which has one clear agenda which i do not see as the overall improvement of the article but in removing certain refs.Single focus editing is not welcomed. keep stable version until all agree! dont get one other editor from out of the blue and then push ahead with a month old agenda edit.--Inayity (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If a statement is sound and a ref is bad we can leave the statement Wikipedia is a WIP, but deleting good info from the lead is a problem just because someone says the ref is bad--then why did Wikipedia create tags?. We know Almoravid included people from West Africa as it had engagements with modern Senegal and Mali. Ancient Ghana so it is good info, now as this is an ongoing project we can keep looking ref--Inayity (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. You say "We know Almoravid included people from West Africa." That's fine. Nobody is disputing that. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Almoravid did not include any West Africans altogether it would still be true that all West Africans included in Almoravid were living below the Senegal River. Therefore to say that Africans below the Senegal River were known as Moors implies that Almoravids from below the Senegal River were known as Moors. Furthermore, since the Almoravid dynasty isn't discussed anywhere in the article except for that sentence, it seems to violate WP:LEAD anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why was it deleted when the Almoravid are obviously Moors? So the problem is the rest of the article not the mention in the lead--Inayity (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Can you possibly try to rephrase it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I also do not understand what you are trying to say.--Inayity (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I will try to make the points more clearly in separate sections.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not respect your comment Pinkbeast, as my edit warring has come to a stop and me and the editor I was predominately warring with has come to an end and we agreed to discuss any controversial edits on the page and we would not make them unless consensus was made. You do not have the right to tell who can make and not make edits. There was nothing wrong with my edit as supported by another editor. West Africans are Sub-Saharan Africans. Ivan is not reliable, it has been deemed that by me and other editors. The new source states the exact same thing, except Sub-Saharan Africans in general and not just West Africans. So why revert? ShawntheGod (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What has been elided from history here is that this comment was first posted by the 70.126.19.148 sock. I don't have the right to tell who can make edits, but I am entitled to have an opinion, and my opinion is that someone who solicits meatpuppets should not edit Wikipedia. Go away. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, that's your opinion, but there is no coronation on here that made you all high and the mighty King of Wikipedia that gave you authorization as to who can make edits and who can not. You are not the social arbiter on here, nor will you ever be able to prove "meatpuppets" were being solicited by me either. The edit warring that was I was previously entailed in with that involved another editor mostly is over with, and we've agreed to discuss the article in a civilized way. It's best for us to discuss the article currently at hand, not editorial that occurred in the past that is not pertinent now. The past is the past, the present is now, and the future is ahead, you seem to dwell on irrelevancy of the past. ShawntheGod (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out something I said in the edit you were replying to: "I don't have the right to tell who can make edits". That obviously achieved a lot.

If you don't like me pointing out that you solicited meatpuppets, too bad. It's not like anyone but you will believe your denials.

Obviously you are in favour of forgetting the past, since it's in the past that you proved grossly untrustworthy. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)