Talk:Moors/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

The images in this article are completely wrong

These images in this article in NO WAY represent the physiognomic Moor. It is hard to believe that such a "reputable" online encyclopedia would allow such false images of the Moors when there are literally dozens of painted images with captions of the artists, along with many descriptions describing the Moors who are in fact the Moabites as cited by the Christian writers of the Middle ages, as dark skinned (misnomer black) men and woman. Such misinformation is seen as a greater western academic attempt to disconnect the greatness of those whom are being called black or african american, from their Moorish roots because these roots can literally be traced back to the paradisiacal myth of the Garden of Eden and who the worlds first men are, how they looked and what they were called, MOORS, Who came from the sacred MT. MERU. After my experience with the Noble Drew Ali page dealing with the Moorish Science Temple of America and its history, proves my point. This articles imagery sets the tone for a "whitewashing" of historical facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheik Way-El (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2013‎

Do you have any specific suggestions for improving the article? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

what is the problem here ? some users just don't seem to get it . the pictures in the article are contemporary. are you saying that a contemporary depiction of a berber moorish king isn't relevant ? why would cherry picked 16th century paintings of random , fictitious people be representative of the actual historical moors ? paintings like Rembrandt's " two moors " and " saint george and the moors " don't belong in here . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paypayvay (talk • contribs) 18:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

How are contemporary depictions of a moorish king more relevant or suitable than a picture by Rembrand ? The 16th centuiry would be a periuod closer to Moorish Spain than now, and besides these historic paintings would have been informed by knowledge that Europeans had first hand of Moors serving in Royall courts all over Europe long afdter thye collapse of Andalusia. This comment on your part betrays a lack of respect for responsible scholarship.Kaigama33 (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaigama33 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And on the image of Othello; In the Literary world there is no debate anymore that Shakepeare intended his character to be black. However the image in the article shows a tawny moor:

It is of course true that the term ‘Moor’ was a remarkably flexible one in the early seventeenth century (fig. 7): not only was it indiscriminately applied to both North Africans and sub-Saharan Negroes (sometimes subdivided into ‘White’,‘Tawny’, and ‘Black’ Moors), but it could also be deployed as a religious category denoting all Muslims (regardless of their ethnicity), or used as a loose descriptor of colour, embracing on occasion even the inhabitants of the New World.2

However, the language of the play—especially the slurs of Iago, Roderigo, and Brabantio—makes it fairly plain that (as with Aaron the Moor in Titus Andronicus) it was a black African that Shakespeare had in mind. The stage tradition, moreover, is unequivocal: from Betterton in the late seventeenth century until Kemble at the end of the eighteenth, the hero was invariably played in blackface as a sub-Saharan ‘black Moor’. The Oxford Shakespeare: Othello: The Moor of Venice (The Oxford Shakespeare)Michael Neill, 2008.

This picture should be changed. Kaigama33 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"Modern meanings"

With the exception of Sri Lankan Moors, this section is largely irrelevant as it does not deal with "Moors", but with cognate terms used in other languages. This is of only tangential interest in an en.Wikipedia article and should be relegated to a footnote or just two or three lines. DeCausa (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Moor Imagery and Information

I recently removed a painting of a Moroccan sultan from the 19th century as that image has nothing to do with this article. It has been attempted to be removed several times before and I think remember someone saying it was there as an example of a modern picture of a Moroccan to go with "modern meanings" even though the picture is not "modern" and just completely irrelevant. I put up an image of Mohammed VI who is the current King of Morocco and very modern. WP:IRELEV, we need images to be relevant to the article, that one of the Moroccan sultan currently is not. Also @ Pinkbeast you do not need to have "discussion" first before making a change to a article. You know how WP:Consensus works, don't act like you OWN this article. Valid reason for reversion should be needed, not a poor one like that. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is kingdoms capitalized Kingdoms?--Inayity (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You can change it back if you want, just wanted to make a minor edit to inform him on the history page that a section on the talk page was opened. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

How many of the previous removals were you in a different hat? In my view you should still not touch this article after acting in such bad faith. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not proud of former edit warring actions that occurred on this page. I will concede here and admit that I was not as an informed editor overall back then as I am now. I am much more enlightened on Wikipedia policies and guidelines now and feel more experienced as an editor. Any more changes I make to this article shall be backed up by WP's guidelines and policies. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Where in those policies does it suggest you mention the actions of your own socks to support the idea that a removal is justified? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to my former edit warring and everything that entails it, I just told you that I am not proud of it. I just told you that any edit that shall be made to this article (or other) will be ones that are backed up by WP's guidelines and policies. The recent removal of that Moroccan Sultan picture was justified, as explained above. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Time Will Tell--Inayity (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So can anybody explain how the Moroccan Sultan picture is pertinent to this article? If not, the removal is suitable. ShawntheGod (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Remove. As defined at the beginning of the article, it is, in the English language, a term that is applied only to a medieval people. The king of Morocco is not a Moor in English, and to describe him as such would generally be considered racist and offensive, IMHO. As a subsidiary point, the large section on a cognate term that is used in modern romance languages is utterly irrelevant to this article and needs to be cut back. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I completely concur and I decided to remove the image of the Sultan and Mohammed VI. Neither of them seem very relevant to this article. "Moors" or "Moor" is such a polysemous term and just because Mohammed VI might fall under that subcategory of an ambiguous term usage in modern times doesn't mean he deserves to be in the article. Sultan is not even relevant and Mohammed VI might fall under the modern usage of the term, but he still is not literally a "meanings" of the word or is he described in the article anywhere. It's best to just keep both out. ShawntheGod (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Source has been deemed unreliable by other editors and me. It has no scholarship and is questionable. Removal is clearly justified. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I almost believed you had changed. As it relates to that sneaky removal of the Book By Poole. We can now start a discussion of the problem with the images from the stable platform. B/c Currently one agenda pusher (Shawn) and Decausa do not want the image. b4 we edit war, let us discuss!--Inayity (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to edit war about here. That book is not reliable, deemed so by me and other editors. What don't you comprehend about that? The questionable views are transparent and it has no scholarship. As for the images? The sultan is not even relevant to this article and Mohammed IV does not belong in the article in my opinion. Another editor has agreed with me on that too. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

By what process was it deemed un RS? Have you even read the book? So I see not scholarly debate about it not being RS. If so take me to Google Scholar where that discussion is happening. Or you can get some fly-by editor to say he "had a quick look and did not like it" is that what you mean about "other editors", why not go and get some more puppets and do a vote. 200 uninformed editors cannot be one scholar on a topic--Inayity (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard is where this discussion should be carried out, go there to continue this conversation regarding the source, thank you. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Inayity "finally an actual rational for removing John Jackson, I am reasonable"; I have no doubt that you are my man. Me and you can both discuss things with civility as we agreed to do, no need to edit war. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent addition of a of a source by the scholar John Baker and minor textual change to "Berber" due to the fact "African" is a vague term (another editor agreed with me on this) and the original Moors were Arabs and Berbers. In modern day Iberia they refer to North Africans as 'Moors' and modern day North Africans are predominately Arabs and Berbers, so the "Berber" change makes much more sense. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Images That Don't Go along with the Concepts in the Article

I see some images at the very moment in the article that don't go along with concepts in the article. PER WP:IUP and to be specific"images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article." and I see a lot of images that don't depict current concepts in the article. Yes, some of these images the people in these images may have been deemed 'Moorish' or 'Moor' but that doesn't mean they deserve to be in the article. They don't go along with any concepts in the article (Moors of Iberia, Sicily, architecture etc) and are completely extraneous to the article. Just because something has been deemed 'Moor' or 'Moorish' doesn't mean they are congruent with the article, if that was the case I could get someone to call myself a 'Moor' and a picture of me in the article could be fitting. The images of "Moors" or a 'Moor' in the article should depict direct concepts to go along with the article (Iberia, Sicily, etc) and the tasteless images that lack relevancy with the articles concept should be removed and possibly replaced. ShawntheGod (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me forestall the usual next stage where the meat puppeteer does whatever they like because "no-one objected". Leave it alone. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"leave it alone"

Some of these images seem completely superfluous and the ones that might be relevant to the article lack direct relevancy to the articles concepts. If you can't tell me how some of these images go hand in hand with the articles concepts, then they should be removed and that's per WP policy. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, WP policy is not that anything that can't be explained to one meatpuppeteer should be removed. Sorry. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So you can tell me how an image like Othello is relevant to the article? What concept is it depicting? Moors of Iberia? Sicily? Architecture? He is not even a medieval Muslim. If you can't tell me how Othello is pertinent, then it gets removed per WP policy. Let us build consensus here and converse with civility, not make off-topic comments or direct insults. Just answer the question about Othello. ShawntheGod (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Tell you what. Every time you want to repeat yourself, why don't you just look up there to find my previous reply? I've already replied to that question about half a dozen times. That'll save me some time, and you can continue this exercise in argumentam ad nauseam without having to wait for me to actually write anything. Since you appear to think that mere repetition will suddenly cause me to undergo a Damascene conversion, well, you'll be able to expedite the process that way. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Every time you corresponded to my rationale it was 'hurr durr he's a Moor so he can go in the article' but once again, he's not a 'Moor' in the sense of this article. He's not a medieval Muslim, he is not pertinent to the article in any of its various concepts. What don't you comprehend about that? The only "ad nauseam" that's occurring here is to thyself because of your trite responses that are nonsensical. You wanna keep Othello in the article? Fine. I understand he's a notable person the appellation of 'Moor' or whatever was applied to him, but he's not one in this sense of the article. Your rationale for wanting to keep him is because of his notability and famosity. My rationale for wanting to remove him is because he's not relevant to the article currently. How about I remove another picture that lacks congruency instead? Would this be better for you? Removing a picture of a so called 'Moor' or whatever that lacks relevancy and is lesser-known instead of removing Othello? ShawntheGod (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

See repeated previous responses above. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I just see the same trite response that makes no sense with WP image policy. You saying Othello can stay in the article cause he's a 'Moor and this article is about Moors' makes no sense. Not a Moor in the sense of this article, if anybody who was called a 'Moor' could be included in this article then my madre could call me that term and a picture of myself could go in the article. You do see how idiotic your logic is now, right? Images need to depict concepts in the article, something a few images in this article currently do not delineate. ShawntheGod (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent editorial replaces an image that lacks historicity (did not come from an area the Moors inhabited but from a German tapestry) and replaced with an image of historicity (taken from Cantigas de Santa Maria) and depicts concepts (Reconquista battle) described in the article, unlike the former image. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And replaced, no other editor supporting this change. Selfie "argument" responded to above, not repeating self. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why have a problem with an image that has historicity and depicts concepts in the article with an image that has no historicity and doesn't depict concepts in the article? You're not making any sense here. Reverting because no consensus is not a valid reason. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't replace the image you added, and much as you dislike being reverted because you never have any support for your changes, you might be used to it by now? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You know reverting because no consensus is such a reason of poverty. One advised against by our fellow WP brethren too. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed those two images in my recent editorial because they aren't pertinent to the article. They don't depict any concepts described in the article, completely extraneous. A man from the Emirate of Trarza is not a Moor and a German painting reconstructing the Moors is not depicting the Moors in Iberia, Sicily, etc, irrelevant too. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to the page adds a popular culture section (therefore allowing Othello to remain in the article), removal of the Wild Men and Moors image due to its failure to delineate any concepts in the article, and an image of the great explorer Ibn Battuta in the article in replace of the former image. ShawntheGod (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That is simply "the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". Do you know what else is the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors? It's "leave the Moors article alone, meatpuppeteer". If you take the former as Gospel truth, why not the latter?

I've restored the images you removed, since there seems to be no support for your changes. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did you have a problem with my removal of those three images? They don't depict any concepts described in the article. I didn't wanna remove Othello because he's such a noteworthy person the term 'Moor' was applied to so I made a pop culture section so he can be congruent with the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Moors in Art and Popular Culture

I propose we add a new subtopic, Moors in Popular Culture. It should include moors from popular movioes, plays, stories and paintings. It would be a downright shame if we left out the historic paintings and images of moors for the sake of them being too black to suit the tastes of some wiki editors. This would be keeping in spirit with the historic conception of the "moor" for several centuries after the moors were expelled from Spain.Kaigama33 (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 1.165.6.3 (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, the section formerly labelled Moors in Popular Culture has been edited by me. I changed the subtitle to Moors in Art, Literature and Popular culture. And the previous content was too much centered around the modern day pop culture one associates with American TV, as opposed to actual history. I intend to extend and edit what I added to include Moors as portrayed in Literature during the Islamic conquest of Visigothic Spain, and also the idea of the Moor as expressed in European medieval art, paintings, sculpture, ornaments, which carried unto the modern period.

I also intend to discuss the peculiar European Court culture associated with the acquisition of black Moors as slaves or servants or savants, often used as status symbols. Angelino Soliman, the Moor of Vienna Austria, being the perfect example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaigama33 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. So someone got rid of my additions to the section labelled moors in art and popular culture. Why was that? Was there a problem with my sources, since everything was properly referenced. its not as if I got rid of the original input I found in the section. This is a historical article. i dont see how shallow and superficial references to American Tv ought to bemore valued than things like Medieval literature and art. Could someone please explain. If people are more interested in TV than history, what are they doing here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaigama33 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Othello Not Relevant

Recent editorial removes Othello from the article due to the fact he is not relevant to the article. How? Because this article is about medieval Muslims who inhabited those areas listed in the lead. Othello was not a "medieval Muslim", nor did he inhabit any of those areas listed in the lead. Just because the appellation of 'Moor' was applied to Othello does not make him relevant to the article. You could apply that term to anyone, this article is about the medieval Muslims of certain areas, one that Othello was not. Removal of Othello from the article is clearly justified per WP:PERTINENCE and WP:IUP as he is extraneous to the article due to the fact he is not a Moor in the notion of this article and does not fit appositely towards any concepts described in this article. ShawntheGod (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The last sixty-eight times you proposed this - from your wide variety of identities - there was no support from anyone who wasn't you in a different hat. Give it a rest? Pinkbeast (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My contributions to this article has been significant. If you can tell me how the picture is relevant to the article, it can stay, but at this very moment in time it's extraneous. Othello is not a medieval Muslim and has no correlation to the article in anyway because he does not depict any concepts described in the article. Yes, the term 'Moor' was applied to him, it can be applied to anybody. Is he a Moor in the sense of this article? No. The last image of the Sultan was removed because it lacked pertinence to the article. If your best logicality for combating my rationale is "give it a rest?" that's not a very good one. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you refer to the discussion with all your previous personas? It's right up there and no doubt you read it at the time. I will gladly discuss this change with a good-faith editor - ie, not you - who supports it but it seems quite unnecessary to restate what I have stated before merely because you have changed identity. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So what exactly is your reason for Othello's pertinence to this article? If you can tell me how he's relevant, just do so right now, don't make such a lame post in which you duck giving me an actual reason. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Same as last time. And - like last time - let's see if an editor who's not a meatpuppeteer thinks you've got the right idea. Because - like last time - otherwise, there's not a scrap of consensus for the bee in your bonnet about Othello, so leave it alone?

I am not obliged to waste my time restating things I have stated before for the benefit of someone who, besides meatpuppeting, has yet to apologise for their prior incivility. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh, the ol' reverting because no consensus, huh? Another lame post by you ducking an actual reason, because you have none. Othello fails to meet relevancy standards to this article, if he was pertinent, you could give me a bonafide reason. As for the whole 'meatpuppet' thing -- you're still dwelling on the edit war of the yore? The editor I was edit-warring with predominately and I agreed we would discuss the article in a manner of civility and abide WP's guidelines and policies, which I have done since then and have contributed greatly to this article. Can you give me a reason how Othello is relevant now or no? ShawntheGod (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, reverting because no consensus (more accurately, no support for your change). Yes, I'm still dwelling on you being a meatpuppeteer. You should have been blocked for it; you will be permanently tainted by it. Why should I ever trust you to be acting in good faith?

As I mentioned, I'm not obliged to repeat myself every time you get bored; no more than Talk:The Mousetrap would repeat the discussion about the plot summary every time some fresh person arrives.

I will gladly discuss this issue with any good-faith editor. That's hardly ducking it; it's entirely your own fault that you don't fall into that category. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So you have no reason for how Othello is relevant at hand, huh? You continuing to ignore the editorial at hand, huh? You don't think I'm a good-faith editor, huh? Even though I've made tons of edits that been included into this article -- I'm still not "good-faith" enough for you, huh? Oh, by the way, if you have a problem with me editing WP because of something that you believe happened in the past, take it to the correct noticeboard, don't continue to make the same trite comment. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also the image of Othello isn't copyvio, unlike the one you replaced it with - clever editing there! I do have a reason at hand; refer up the page to the previous discussion. I certainly intend to continue to mention you're a meatpuppeteer. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have done it. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How is my image a copyvio? What is the "reason at hand"? How is Othello relevant? Tell me, oh wait cause you can't, more ducking. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

11:22, 2 April 2014‎ Filedelinkerbot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,374 bytes) (-156)‎ . . (Bot: Removing Commons:File:IbnBattutaportrait.png (en). It was deleted on Commons by Denniss (Copyright violation; see Commons:Commons:Licensing).)

I'm not ducking; I'll gladly discuss the issue with any good-faith editor, but I won't repeat myself for a meatpuppeteer. You are hardly the only other person who reads this talk page, so why not wait and see if anyone else joins the discussion. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it was a copyright violation, it was an edited image of this one right here, which permission was granted by the author to be modified. Either way, that's irrelevant, why not tell me how Othello is relevant? Just tell me straight up, don't front. You keep ducking right now, so if Othello is relevant, how? Just tell me. If you can't, then it's quite clear you're ducking (again); I already told you too, if you have a problem with me as an editor because of the past, take it the correct noticeboard and complain properly, not on here. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Take it up with the deleting admin, not me. OK, since you are apparently completely incapable of searching the talk page, Othello is "enormously well known by virtue of being a (fictional) Moor", and please spare me the absurdity of discussing the genaeology of a fictional character. And I told you, I'll mention that you're a meatpuppeteer wherever I like. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have done it. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "I don't like it" it's the fact that's it completely irrelevant to our discussion about Othello now. He's a fictional Moor, so what does he have to do with this article? I already told you, he doesn't. He's extraneous, not a Moor in the sense of this article, he was not a medieval Muslim of any of those areas. He isn't a concept in this article, at all. He lacks pertinence to the article because nowhere is he relevant to the article at hand. ShawntheGod (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant because I only really want to discuss this with a good-faith editor and you aren't one.

As I said, discussion of whether a fictional character is of Moorish origins is absurd; you might as well worry about whether Jean-Luc Picard is a well-known fictional Frenchman in view of his accent. This is a pointless repetition of previous discussion on this talk page; you don't like the Othello image, no-one else (and I am quite willing to be corrected on this point) supported your position, leave it alone. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So your reason is simply because no consensus, that's it. Poor reason; Othello lacks pertinence to the article, you know this, or else you wouldn't be struggling to give me a reason as to how he's relevant. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No; my reason for pertinence is "extremely well-known fictional Moor". Shakespeare thought he was portraying a Moor, even if he was not well-informed on the subject; just as 30s SF views of Venus as ocean planet (as the science of the time supposed it was) are pertinent to the planet Venus even though the authors were equally ill-informed. You may not suppose that qualifies, but it's more than good enough for me.

The reason you should not make this edit is that the only person who wants it made is you, yes. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about 'fictional Moors' though, it's about the actual Moors of those areas listed in the article. Othello lacks pertinence to this article because he has nothing to do with any concepts described in it besides the fact the appellation of 'Moor' was applied to him. It could be applied to anybody, that doesn't mean they're Moors in the sense of the ones for this article. I also see another image that isn't congruent with the articles concept and should be removed in my opinion. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a great many other Wikipedia articles about real things which mention fictional depictions of those things, so your objection is moot. Are you going to remove the picture of an invading tripod from Mars? That's a fictional Martian, and it's probably rather less like the unicellular organisms that might just about possibly be present on Mars than Othello was like a real Moor. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, because that's congruent with the section next to it. Also, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF; Othello lacks relevancy because he does not depict any concepts described in this article and is therefore irrelevant. I'll make a deal with you right now -- the Othello picture gets deleted and the Trarzas one too. They both get removed from the article and an image of Ibn Battuta goes up in replace of Othello. Why? Cause Ibn was an actual medieval Muslim from Morocco and he was a notable Moor for his great explorations. Does my proposed editorial sound good or not? If not, tell me why. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Very relevant as per all the explanations above. Wikipedia does not have these concerns and neither should we. A notable fictional character known to most of the English speaking world is relevant per the article Moor. Esp when it is crystal clear that Moor is NOT a official term used by any person called Moor. Muslims did not call themselves Moors, so the perception includes popular fiction.--Inayity (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"so the perception includes popular fiction"

That is not something this article is about, which all that Othello is. This article regards the Medieval Muslims of certain areas, meanings of the word, detail information of the Moors in (Iberia, Sicily, etc,) their influence there (architecture and heraldry section), and population types and notable Moors from those civilizations. Othello fails to meet the criterion of these concepts. Othello is a known fictional person; Ibn Battuta is a real Moor of accomplishment who fits the criteria of this article. Othello fails to meet relevancy in the current article. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but notice your "deal" is "ShawntheGod the meatpuppeteer will do whatever they want; every other editor will stop objecting". No thanks. Obviously, this proposed edit sounds terrible, for reasons which I do not propose to re-re-re-re-iterate. (The question of whether Battuta might go in is a bit of a red herring; clearly a separate issue).

You're approaching a bit of a circular argument here where the present content of the article (less the bits you don't like) define the content permissible in the article (so take out the bits you don't like). There isn't really a need for anything beyond the words below the picture of Othello because his identity is common knowledge and they link to the main article about him, but, if you want to write a short section about him, be my guest.

Please also try to indent talk pages correctly. If nothing else, it's in your best interests because it will remove one obvious tell from your next editing persona. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So you see that at the current state of the article Othello is not apposite in terms of criterion Pinkbeast? Good, if that's the case then removal is justified and the Trarza man is too, as the Emirate of Trarza has nothing to do with the Moors. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that is almost precisely not what I am saying. I'm saying the title of the article defines what it is about; the present content is not a rigid straitjacket for all future content. The title is Moors, Othello is a fictional Moor, the other chap is identified as Moorish and very likely of Moorish descent. No problem. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the title may be "Moors" but the images should depict concepts described in the article. See WP:IUP to be exact "images should depict concepts described in the article" something Othello fails to do. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It does depict a concept described in the article, viz, a Moor. It is very precisely the painter's concept of a Moor, even if it is inaccurate. Next? Pinkbeast (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so now anybody deemed a "Moor" can be included in the article? If I call myself a "Moor" and take a selfie of myself can I go along next to the "modern meanings" part? Don't be ridiculous now, it doesn't depict any direct concepts of the article. Notice how it says under content "concepts" referring to the article and its sections and "text of the article" referring to the textual in the articles sections. Othello does not meet relevancy. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If you are as well-known as Othello and the photo of you is a genuine attempt to depict a Moor by a photographer as notable in their field as Shakespeare is in his, I don't see why not. Of course, that doesn't apply. So, we're back where we started; you don't like the picture of Othello, no-one else agrees, stop sneaking back every few months to remove it in the hope we're tired of repeating ourselves endlessly? 14:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So once again, Othello fails to meet criterion. I'll quote the WP policy again "In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article.". Othello fails to meet relevancy because nowhere does he fit the criterion of concepts described in the text of the article. Is he a Moor of Iberia? No. Is he a Moor of Sicily? No. Is he a Moor of Morocco? No. Are you getting my point now? ShawntheGod (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I got your point about forty-eight iterations ago, probably not even on this sock. I just don't think it's valid, and mere repetition has failed to make it any more convincing. Is he a Moor? Yes. Would a real Moor who happened to be living in Venice be potentially relevant? Yes.

I don't propose to respond to any more replies until you at least start indenting correctly. I think we've gone around this quite far enough, and as mentioned, I really am only interested in discussing this with editors without a history of meatpuppetry. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So you understand my point? I'll even emphasize the exact words of much importance this time, last reiteration here. "In general, images should depict the CONCEPTS described in the TEXT of the ARTICLE." Nowhere does Othello go along with the concepts in the text of the article currently, therefore he is extraneous and removal is justified. ShawntheGod (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I comprehend your argument but it does not justify its conclusion. Enough said; I'm done here, at least until the next time you pretend silence implies assent. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So if you comprehend my argument then you see how Othello is not pertinent at the moment. He does not go along with any concepts in the article. Not the Moors of Iberia, Sicily, the architecture part, none. If he's not relevant, then how is the removal not justified? ShawntheGod (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the conclusion that he is not pertinent is false. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You just said @Pinkbeast that "I comprehend your argument" so if that's the case, then how is Othello relevant? What concepts in the article does he go along with? The Moors of Iberia? The architecture part? Enlighten me how he's relevant at this very moment. If you can tell me how he's relevant and therefore congruent at this moment, then please do so. If not, then the removal is clear. ShawntheGod (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a great many things, I imagine, that I would find it impossible to explain to you. That doesn't mean they are not necessarily true. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, @Pinkbeast, there is lucidity on both sides here. You know that the way the current article is Othello and some other images are not harmonious with the current concepts. You comprehend this; I also comprehend as to why you don't wanna remove Othello. He is a very noteworthy person the word "Moor" was applied to, probably the most renowned. I understand this, but you also know that he doesn't go along with the current concepts in the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that at all. He's a Moor and the article is about Moors. What next, remove the chess-playing images because there's nothing specifically in there about Moors playing chess? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2014

(UTC)

I'm not just singling out Othello, there are other images on this page that aren't congruent with the concepts too. The Moors playing chess are from Iberia -- they go along with the Moors of Iberia concept. Othello doesn't go along with any concepts. I understand your rationale for wanting to keep him in the article, but he isn't harmonious with the current concepts in the article and therefore extraneous to the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@ShawntheGod Shawn, if you cant prove what seems like unfettered opinion with scholarly references you should not be arguing. How on earth is Othello, the most famous moor does not fit into the historic concept of the term moor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaigama33 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Improving citations

This article has been tagged since September 2011 for need of additional citations, inappropriate or misinterpreted citations and disputed factual accuracy. If we are to improve the article, some additional details here on the talk page would be useful, such as what facts are in dispute and what citations may have been misinterpreted. If anyone knows of a citation that does not support the attributed sentence, please note the details here, so that I or another editor can remedy the situation. Also please note here any other dubious assertions of fact not already tagged with . If none are noted within about 30 days, I intend to remove the tag. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The etymology of Moor needs to be better cited than etymonline.com. I have a much more scholarly citation; here it is: "Indeed, by the time Isidore of Seville came to write his Etymologies, the word Maurus or ‘Moor’ had become an adjective in Latin, ‘for the Greeks call black, mauron’. "In Isidore’s day, Moors were black by definition…” (Staying Roman: Conquest and identity in Africa and the Mediterranean, 439-700. Jonathan Conant, 2012 Cambridge University Press.) Am going to change the meaning and citation of the Moor etymology.Before I do so, does anyone object and on what ground? Kaigama33 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem unreasonable. On a technical note, however, you've got some Windows quote damage in that, which shouldn't be transcribed into the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

pinkbeeast, this article is in a mess largely because of a vandal whose name shall not be mentioned.Since I am new here I would like to know what is the correct procedure for putting an end to the kind of vandalism which this article is continually being subject to. It reads like one of the most pathetic articles on wikipedia right now.Kaigama33 (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The definition of Moor.

Why are Moors defined as Medieval Moslems? The word Moor was used by Greeks and Romans to describe the ancient inhabitants of North Africa, the definition of Moor should begin with the Ancient Greek Roman period, not the Medieval ages. I think this article focuses too much on Islamic Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaigama33 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, we have frequent examples of Moor being used in non Islamic contexts. Such as the the Black Magus. If I am able to redefine moor to include moor as used in preislamic, Roman or Christian contexts in the lead, will the edit be allowed. And if no, why not? Because the lead which defines moor as medieval moslems has no references. Its just the opinion of a wiki editor, which is not good enough. Or at least it should not be.Kaigama33 (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In medieval times the term Moor (like Saracen) basically meant Muslim, it had no denotation of anything other than that. The term has became of such ambiguity since then too. It focuses primarily on the medieval Islamic Moors of Iberia because that's what the Moors are the most renowned for and Al-Andalus is a huge part of history. Would you rather have the article focus more on the Moors short period elsewhere? The influence the Moors had on Espana is huge.

I had to revert your recent edits to the page because of your poor grammar (incorrect capitalization, punctuation, etc), your sources were not legit, and the one source that was legit you didn't quote Martial correctly. You also messed up the articles popular culture section. ShawntheGod (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Shawn, the word moor ought to mean whatever people throughout history intended it to mean, when they used it. This is a term which clearly originates from the Greek Roman era. If we are to write a historical article about moor, it ought to reflect the historical meaning of the word as opposed to simply concentrating one one particular period of history such as the Islamic conquest of Spain.

The Islamic conquest of Spain may have been a big deal for Europeans, and the article ought to reflect that but it would not be accurate to say that Moors refer to Medieval moslems , when that is clearly not the case.

And could you please give me a detailed explanation as to how my sources were not legit. Not legit and you not liking a source is not the same thing. Errors of grammar and punctuation could easily be corrected. wiping out entire sections of an article because of errors in grammar which you are unable to specify makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaigama33 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:UGC, self-published sources from Academia and a personal website (Ancienttexts.org) is not a legitimate source for history and lacks any scholarship. Your one source that was legitimate didn't quote the Roman poet correctly. The term 'Moor' or 'Moors' have such ambiguity, but this article focuses on the medieval Muslim Moors (whom the term was applied to by people) because this is what they're most notable for, especially Al-Andalus. Such a large section on the usage of the term 'Moors' before medieval times seems redundant and more appropriate for etymology section to being with. Another editor already wanted to abridge that whole "modern meanings" section because they though it was largely superfluous and way too much extraneous information about words esque to it instead of actual focusing on the meanings of the word in contemporary times. If you wanna mention how the word "Moors" was used pre-medieval times by Greco-Romans, put it in the etymology section and provide reliable sources, therefore it leads up to the medieval or modern times meanings, much more apposite there. ShawntheGod (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Shawn, it's the easiest thing in the world for me to get an edition of the poem,besides the one from Ancient text. And how did I not quote Martial correctly? Do you question the existence of the poems and ideas which I made references to. Because my references could easily be corrected. When I do make these corrections I don't expect my contributions to be wiped out so unceremoniously.

I know the article focuses on Medieval moors, which is exactly the problem. The article ought to begin with moors as defined by the Greeks and Romans because the term originates from the Greek and Roman era. And its usage in the Middle Ages is nothoing more but a continuation from the earlier Greek and Roman period. As I said the lead does not even reference the idea that moors ought to be medieval moslems; it is nothing more but the opinion of a wiki editor.

The word moor should be defined to mean what can be proven in history. It makes no sense to speak about Sri Lankan moors and such without making any mention of the first group of people who were referred to as Moors, which is the North African populations encountered by Greeks and Romans and described as moors.Kaigama33 (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Look this article focuses largely on the Islamic medieval era of the Moors because that's what it is about. I removed your material because it was poorly-written OR material that messed up the article and didn't seem apposite for the section you were trying to include it in. If you wanna mention how the word "Moors" was used by the Greco-Romans, it seems apposite for the etymology section, make sure your grammatically correct this time and source your information properly too. ShawntheGod (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Am I talking to someone who is deaf, here? The article is called Moors. Any article about Moors ought to begin with the GrecoRoman period as this is the origin of Moors and not just the etymology of the word. If you are focused so much on Medieval Moslems the article ought to be renamed medieval Islamic moors, and not just moors. This problem could easily be solved by creating a proper historical chronology of the term and how it has been used throughout history. It makes no sense for the word moor to be defined in a way which simply suits your own bias or obsession with the Islamic Spain and the Medieval ages. And would you please stop talking about grammar. Most of this article reads like something written by someone for whom English is a second language or someone who is a mediocre English student still stuck in high school, because he is forced to repeat grades so many times for being so dull. Kaigama33 (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The "Moors were the medieval Muslim inhabitants" has been on this article for like 10 years now. If you wanna add information about the usage of the term "Moors" preceding medieval times, then put it in the appropriate section for the history of the word (etymology) and make sure you have proper sources, grammar, you don't mess up the article, and you quote people correctly this time. If you wanna add literature about the Moors from Al-Andalus, Sicily, etc, put it in the existing sections in the article. Thanks.ShawntheGod (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. It's been there since September 2012 - as you would know if you read the talk page - and was a "least-worst" compromise at the time. Please try not to interfere with good-faith editors more than is necessary; Kaigama33 is clearly trying to improve the page rather than strip out images based on their own personal preferences or insert the astonishing revelation that a character in a Shakespeare play has been played by more than one actor.

And, incidentally, "make sure your grammatically correct this time"? Oh, swift and terrible irony. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, check this and it says "term often used in English to describe the medieval Muslim inhabitants", so no something similar to that wording has been on this page for like 10 years now. I did not "interfere" with his editorial except in a necessary way; I reverted him and gave various reasons why (when I revert people I give reasons why) and told him if he wanted to make edits to the page then he needed to do it correctly, I did not denigrate the editor or anything like that. My removal of those images were per WP policy, it wasn't some sort of visceral removal. I also mentioned that Othello was played by various actors so people wouldn't try and include isolated incidents in the article 'Othello was played by X, A, C, in the movie', you get the point. ShawntheGod (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Shawn, I ask this earnestly: Do you have some kind of anti black ideological agenda? All your edits seem focused on gleaning this article of all connections between blacks and moors, which is quite nonsense considering the word actually means just that "black" in many historical instances.Kaigama33 (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Like Shawn apparently, I have always thought of Moors as Muslims and Arabs, and the 'black' label as being a type of racism by those who won't accept that non-Europeans aren't all black or Asian. You really need to read WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well Doug a few editors have had problems with Shawn and I will also state my personal growing up experience. I have never ever knew the word Moor and not associated it with African people & Muslim. All my life Moor meant Othello (James Earl Jones and Fishburn). Now we know Moor =Berber and Arab, and beyond a shadow of a doubt people who look like African Americans. And we had to fight to get that in this article. --Inayity (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You've lost me there. Berbers look like typical African-Americans? Blonde, blue eyes, etc (not that they all are, but many are)? Arabs do also? Have you actually been in any countries that have many Arabs or Berbers? I have, and they don't (or at least most don't) look like typical African-Americans. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the phrase "Berber and Arab, and beyond a shadow of a doubt people who look like African Americans" was intended to mean "Berber, Arabs and 'black' people". In other words, the "Moors" included people who looked like African-Americans, along with those (Berbers and Arabs) who did not. There is no doubt that in medieval and Renaissance art Moors are often depicted with Negroid features and the term was a generic label for Africans, including those who would be characterised as black today. Paul B (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you're probably right. I agree with everything you say, Paul. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Paul yes it was and AND. Doug you can go to Google images right now and please look at the Berber people called the Tuareg, You can look at Berber groups in Southern Morocco who look like African Americans. Actually in one family one would look Arab, one would look 100% Ethiopian (same mom and dad). Many Arabs in the North are mixed with Persian and Greeks. Very few original Arab has natural blonde hair (very rare) if you see it in Egypt is because they bleach.

I know about the Tuareg. I didn't suggest Arabs had blonde hair, but some Berbers do. Berbers aren't the same as Arabs. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me just add the so-called "Arab" is not a "race". You can be Berber and Arabized and self-identify as Arab.(as many did in the past) Arab can mean just having Arabic as a First language and practice Arab culture. Most "Arabs" today are Arabized people. These identities are not static.--Inayity (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

And thus we have Arab-Berber and Arabized Berber. Berber does not equal Arab, which is what I said. I know Arab isn't a race, nor is European or American or even Chinese. This isn't really the point though. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to the point then. As far as I am concern I will quote Maria and state Moor is a disparaging Medieval term for Muslims. And I think the article does justice to what it means.--Inayity (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no anti-black agenda @Kaigama33, black culture plays a huge part in my life (style, linguistic, music, etc) and even a tiny bit of my genome as I am a White American descended from a Negroid slave; if I was anti-black you wouldn't see me making tons of edits to Hip-Hop or R&B articles like I do. I'm actually the only editor to mention how the Sub-Saharan Africans were used in Al-Andalus. I do have an anti pseudo-history agenda though and this article is a hot topic for Afrocentrists and people have complained about that on this article before. My contributions to this article have been significant (sources, images, textual, etc) the problem I have is pseudo-history and nonsense that tries to get integrated into it. @User:Inayity Hollywood is by far no reliable source for history, the nonsense I've seen in the media is ridiculous, the Eurocentrism, Afrocentrism, etc, the garbage in the media is truly abhorrent at times. @Paul B I've seen the "Moors" depicted in various ways, although all the Moor statues of Negroid features tend to come from post Al-Andalus times, not actually from contemporary Al-Andalus that have historicity. All the states of "Moors" I've seen that come from Al-Andalus, tend to have Caucasian features. I've also seen post Al-Andalus light depiction of Moors too, in my opinion it's best to use pictures from Al-Andalus, Sicily, etc, for an authentically historical depiction of Moors, not images from the 1900's to represent the Moors of Espana that have no historicity. ShawntheGod (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No revert =/= support

Please beware that just because someone does not revert you it does not mean they support you. numerous reasons exist. but silence is NOT Support. And when reverted seek the talk page.--Inayity (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This is hardly the first time we have pointed out to the meatpuppeteer that it is not appropriate to assume silence is support. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Nah per WP:CON, to be exact "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.", consensus was assumed seeing as how I made my edit last month and tons of people have viewed the page since then and no one reverted me. My removal of the images were per WP guidelines/policies, not some sort of visceral removal, your reversion is for some sort of visceral removal and not one of logicality. You made the postulation "no support" but if that was the case then I would have been reverted a long time ago for a logical reason. One you still can't seem to give me, as aforesaid and once again for reiteration, the removals are per WP policy and guidelines. Your reversion of my editorial isn't for a reason of validity, except for one that is advised against by other editors and a claim that has been debunked by me too. ShawntheGod (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this is "tonnes of people" who are unaware of the issues with the article and are not senior contributors to the article. And this is not an A-class article with heavy editors, only a few steady contributors including us three. But the main point here is it has been reverted, and all I am saying is best to then use the talk page. And in addition to that, as stated above, this particular edit--unlike other edits, has always been a source of dispute. That means you should have a clear talk page summary and build consensus there for edits that have been problematic in the past.--Inayity (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I comprehend what you're saying, but I also assume you understand what I'm saying too. Consensus was assumed (and support) seeing as my editorial remained the in the article for a decent amount of time before being RV'd. Obviously the postulation "no support" by Pink doesn't seem to be necessarily true just because no one came on the talk page and made it overt they support me. I'm willing to discuss the edit, but a poor trite reason that is advised against by WP editors isn't going to be of enough validity for reversion of my editorial. If Pink can use WP policies/guidelines to show me how my edit was wrong, then that would be great. I used WP policies/guidelines for justifiable removal of the images, but Pink's reason he gave me is not valid enough for reversion. ShawntheGod (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If you assumed consensus for an edit that no-one has ever supported and that both Inayity and I have opposed, that might suggest where the problem is. Pinkbeast (talk)

Consensus was assumed from the most recent editorial, that remained in the article for a decent amount of time, but can we discuss the editorial and why you oppose it? Giving a trite reason that is advised against by WP editors isn't good enough. If you were to use WP policies/guidelines (like I did for removal of the images) then that would be great, but you don't do that. When someone reverts and says 'well, no consensus for that' I basically interpret that as 'I don't like the edit but I can't give an actual reason as to why' which is what seems to be happening here. If I were instill textual into the article and my source wasn't reliable and you told me removal per WP:RS, then I would comprehend that. If I was to insert an image into the article and it was too blurry and you removed per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, then I would understand that. It's just the reason you're giving me is not valid enough, it's basically an invalid reason vs WP guidelines and policies reason. ShawntheGod (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I'm disinclined to repeat myself on this talk page, especially for the benefit of meat puppeteers. Reread the discussion from before. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already read your rationale before -- if you can't give a valid reason for reversion then it's quite clear your reason for reverting isn't of any validity. If you fail to give me a valid reason once again, then I'll just take this to the DRN, which is probably what's gonna end up happening. ShawntheGod (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)