Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Berbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerbersWikipedia:WikiProject BerbersTemplate:WikiProject BerbersBerbers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
I frankly don't understand why this article is separated from the one for Mauri, since the word Moor is originally from Mauri, which was used by Romans, and by the native Mauri (inhabitants of the Kingdom of Mauretania and the Roman provinces that ensued from them) to designate themselves, indicating as Gabriel Camps suggests that it may be originally a Berber word that went into Greek then Latin. The claim of the first paragraph of the article that it was an "exonym" in that sense, is not accurate, and much less is the claim that it was an equivalent of Muslim. The term was and remained much more strongly associated with Northwest Africa and its proxy regions (e.g. Andalusia) than any other place, and a cursory search in the literature is sufficient indication, that it was mainly a geographical term that was sometimes abused and generalized, but most often retained its original significance (check the number of hits for "Moorish Morocco" vs "Moorish Egypt" or any other region, on Google Books or Google Scholar for instance). --Ideophagous (talk) 10:23, 03 April 2021 (UTC+2)
Any reason dark skinned moors are not mentioned or depicted?[edit]
Considering the prevalence of dark-skinned Moors in European art and the historical use of the term to describe individuals with dark complexions, why are there no depictions of dark-skinned Moors? It seems like a significant omission in their history, don't you agree? Araptesot (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's an afrocentrist POV that we are duty-bound to disregard as pseudo-historical woo? SinoDevonian (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eurocentric is just as bad and racist because it’s harmful to the knowledge of African history and the straight up denial over pretty much black history in general. I still remember people saying Masa Mufa was white or kingdoms in sub Sahara Africa were ruled by whites or Muslims. I don’t like Afrocentric but Eurocentric is cancer 2601:8C:B80:6660:DA9:9CD8:D4A7:B44B (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but his dosn'nt make any sensenl.
I'm sorry but his dosn'nt make any sense.
"Afrocentrisim" is a concept that didn't exist until the late 19th century.
I get that you don't like the historical record and don't want to show what you don't agree with, but it is incoherent (at best) to say that anything you don't like is '
"Afrocentrisim" when most of what you don't like comes from non-Africans across a b
"Afrocentrisim" when most of what you don't like comes from non-Africans across a non-African cobtineb
"Afrocentrisim" when most of the historical record in question that you don't like comes from non-Africans centuries before the concept of 'Afrocebtrism' even existed. 98.231.70.155 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think any discussion here should be based on the fact that there is no such thing as a moor - at least not one well-defined group that is properly designated that way. Hence, this is an article about a word, and who it has been applied to, and how, and by whom. Eurocentrism is a significant part of the word, and of course should be exposed. Nø (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
THAT being said, I think it is true that the term "moor", in addition to (or besides?) identifying someone as muslim, also may identify them as black; e.g., Shakespeare's Othello (mentioned in the popular culture section) is genreally seens as black, and traditionally was played by a white actor in blackface. Also, a google image search on "moor" will (when it comes to pictures of people) mostly bring up paintings of black people. I do not have knowledge, sources or time to include this properly in the article, but it is odd that such depictiions are currently absent. Nø (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The depictions are absent because they are old European nonsense. The moors (predominantly Berbers and Arabs) were neither white nor black. M.Bitton (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word Moor is (mostly) old European nonsense. We should descirbe and expose this nonsense; it is the subject of this article. If a high school students comes across a painting of a black person called "A Moor", or comes across the character Othello, and wants to know what that is about, this article should provide an answer. Otherwise, what is this article about? Nø (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word Moor is not nonsense. As the lead sentence says: it's an exonym first used by Christian Europeans to designate the Muslim populations of the Maghreb, al-Andalus (Iberian Peninsula), Sicily and Malta during the Middle Ages (the designated Muslim populations are what the article is about). M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, Moor is not the correct modern encyclopaedic designation for any ethnic, religious, geographical, historical or national group. Therefore, what Wikipedia may have to say about each of the groups you refer to, as such, belongs in other articles. Nø (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article's topic an English-language exonym, a multi-language set of similar exonyms and cognates used by Christian Europeans, or a specific otherness underpinned by the aforementioned set of exonyms? It may come across as pedantic, but I can't help but frowning upon the opening sentence. "Christian Europeans" are not primarily English speakers, and moor is an English-language word.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mawali/Moors: What has happened to my complexion
His-storians: The same thing that happened to Cham ben Noah, Moshe ben Amram, Yeshua ben Yosep, Dravidians, Sumerians, pharaonic & kemetic dynasties of Nubia and Kush, Olmecs, Mayans, so of course Berbers 155.135.55.231 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that the word 'history' does not actually mean 'his story'. Ario1234 (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoodoowoman: please don't give UNDUE weight to "blackamoor" (whatever that means). M.Bitton (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am confused that's what the source says and it's already in the article in the Heraldry section? I am not giving weight to it, just saying how the word moor had different meanings. Is it racially offensive according to present times? I just need more explanations? What about "white moors" in the article? Take that out also? Hoodoowoman (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are giving UNDUE weight to something called "blackamoor". The word moor may have different meanings, but the article is about the meaning that everyone knows and expects. The Moors had a civilization, a culture, a language, music, architecture, etc., none of which has anything to do with skin colour (certainly, not a black one).
Which white Moor are you referring to? Please be specific. M.Bitton (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're being evasive. Remove what exactly and why? M.Bitton (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant what I edited today that you said don't give weight. What I edited today was removed. I checked the view history and someone else removed what I wrote in the article with sources, text and images removed. Hoodoowoman (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was removed because it's clearly UNDUE. For instance, take this image that you added to the top of the article: would anyone consider it to be representative of the Moors? Of course not. We have many contemporary depictions of the Moors that look nothing like it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there were no black people among the Moors, that is simply impossible as they have been part of the scene for millennia, but when one thinks of the Moors or the Romans, a black person is not what springs to mind.
The same goes for "blackamoor", a term used by Elizabethans to describe west Africans during the slave trade. Is that what leaps to mind when you think of the Moors and their language, religion, art, science, etc.? M.Bitton (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I think of moor I think of diversity and culture such as food, language, music, people who are (were in the past) Muslims of any ethnicity or from a certain region, and how the word was used in the past to describe dark skinned people. However the dark skin definition is not used today. Today it has a different meaning, I was just trying to explain how the word was used in the past. I am trying to find reliable sources to say how Africans were a part of Moorish history and culture besides the slave trade. But I will not edit the article, I was just trying to make the article inclusive.
Yes, let's please not conflate racist European artwork and dubious associated terms with the subject here. The connection is tenuous beyond the name. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only changed "Mauro" to "Mauros" the cited source uses Mauro. Why did you change it to Mauros?
1) you added "perhaps" to a sourced statement. Is "perhaps" in the source or is that your WP:OR? 2) you added "Mauharim" to a sourced statement. Is "Mauharim" in the source or is that your WP:OR? 3) you added "μαυρός" to a sourced statement. Is "μαυρός" in the source or is that your WP:OR? 4) why did you remove the sourced statement ""Moor" is presumably of Phoenician origin"? 5) which part of what you added is supported by the new source? M.Bitton (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: Why don't you read the references? The AHD does not trace the word to Phoenician, so I added the word "perhaps". (Besides, the source for that doesn't seem very reliable -- he doesn't even know that "Mauro" is not Ancient Greek!) The "Mauharim" comes from the reference that was already there, the book by George Leighton. "Μαυρός" is simply the word given in the AHD, but in the Greek alphabet! Point 4 I have already answered -- the AHD doesn't agree with the Phoenician origin. I request my edit be reinstated. I don't see why you keep reverting without even checking the references! Why did Skitash send me an "edit war" warning and not to you? Please Ping me when you answer. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you read the sources? The AHD is not authoritative on any of the million subjects that it mentions. It doesn't trace anything, it just gives its own simple definition. "Μαυρός" (jargon to most readers) is not mentioned in it. If you believe that the author of EWM doesn't even know that "Mauro" is not Ancient Greek, then you need to cite the sources that support your assertion. The "Mauharim" comes from the old source that is meant to support the FRINGE Hebrew origin. If you want to use that source for other things, then mention everything that it does (without cherry picking) and attribute them to it.
Why did you remove the sourced statement ""Moor" is presumably of Phoenician origin"?
Why are you asking me to explain another editor's action? If I have to guess, I'd say it's because you're edit warring against two editors. M.Bitton (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: Oh forget it. There's no point in arguing with you. By the way, you didn't Ping me as I requested. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
