| Revision as of 00:20, 24 August 2016 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Moors/Archive 7) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:34, 17 September 2016 edit undo68.145.32.138 (talk) →MoorsNext edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| :Agree in that "the Moors (...) conquered the Iberian Peninsula" makes no sense. This same article reads that the Moors are neither a distinct nor a self-defined people. Hence, it makes little sense that an undescribed mass of people did such a feature. I think we will all agree in that it is much more true to history to talk about Umayyad conquest, even though we know that the lion's share of the troops were what came to be known by Christians as "moors". <b><font face="Book Antiqua" color="black">MOUNTOLIVE</font></b> ] 13:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC) | :Agree in that "the Moors (...) conquered the Iberian Peninsula" makes no sense. This same article reads that the Moors are neither a distinct nor a self-defined people. Hence, it makes little sense that an undescribed mass of people did such a feature. I think we will all agree in that it is much more true to history to talk about Umayyad conquest, even though we know that the lion's share of the troops were what came to be known by Christians as "moors". <b><font face="Book Antiqua" color="black">MOUNTOLIVE</font></b> ] 13:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| no Moorish coat of arms? no saint benedict the Moor? Can't show people that because they look and are black! | |||
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_98247yflU | |||
| https://www.google.ca/search?q=moorish+coat+of+arms&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIsoKJp5bPAhWr3YMKHbNJClQQvwUIGygA&biw=1920&bih=940 | |||
| == in Spanish == | == in Spanish == | ||
Revision as of 11:34, 17 September 2016
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moors article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 Archives | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Telling the woods from the trees - the file I deleted and Othello
Today I deleted a file recently uploaded to Commons by a new account who also added it here, File:Moor Chief.jpg because the title it has now is misleading. The painter didn't suggest it was a Moor. But I was looking at a 'tree' and missing the forest. It is a 19th century painting and the article doesn't suggest anywhere that there were any people called Moors in the 18th century. That reason alone is enough to say that the painting doesn't belong here. The Othello painting is also 19th century and I think should be removed. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe moved down the gallery, but I still feel a picture of Othello is interesting as the most well-known fictional Moor. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Or move it into the popular culture section? Doug Weller talk 19:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think that would be very sensible and if there are no objections we should do it. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
///////////////
From Ireland ...
Have to agree with the previous poster on here, in that Wiki is becoming quite known for apparent bias. Why just one photo showing very pale people as Moors? I have been doing research and from what I have come across, I feel that there should be, at the very least, a mixture of the skin tones added for a fuller picture of what they looked like. This is just giving one side to those who are not previously familiar with any study on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.170.170 (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The Moors pre-date Islam the start of the paragraph does not make sense.The Romans were the first people to use the word Moor to describe the people that lived there. Wiki bais because wiki is racist towards black people there is a history of racism on wiki when comes to black people. Last time checked st Maurice the moor the predate Islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.32.138 (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Moors
This info is wrong please re-study — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.105.94.12 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Moors: people who overran the Iberian Peninsula in A.D. 711.
In A.D. 711 the Moors, Islamic invaders from northern Africa, conquered the Iberian Peninsula. Spain's culture changed dramatically because of the influence of the Moors. Today the culture of Spain and Portugal are quite different from other cultures of Europe because of the Moorish influence on their art, architecture, engineering, music, and literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.134.189.87 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agree in that "the Moors (...) conquered the Iberian Peninsula" makes no sense. This same article reads that the Moors are neither a distinct nor a self-defined people. Hence, it makes little sense that an undescribed mass of people did such a feature. I think we will all agree in that it is much more true to history to talk about Umayyad conquest, even though we know that the lion's share of the troops were what came to be known by Christians as "moors". MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 13:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
no Moorish coat of arms? no saint benedict the Moor? Can't show people that because they look and are black! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_98247yflU https://www.google.ca/search?q=moorish+coat+of+arms&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIsoKJp5bPAhWr3YMKHbNJClQQvwUIGygA&biw=1920&bih=940
in Spanish
In Spanish the term 'moro' is merely descriptive, and as such is rendered by the authoritative dictionary of the Spanish language. That is the standard usage.
Hence, I dont see why the observations of some authors (all of them but one non-Spanish, by the way) should go first in the text.
Worse: of the cited ebooks, a search for 'moor' or 'moro' in 'Geopolitics of the EU' shows 0 results. Idem for these searches in 'Transcultural modernities'.
'Translating sensitive Texts' renders three results for 'moor' (none derogatory) and 0 for 'moro'. I couldnt manage to find a 'search' option at 'The multiculturalism backlash'. Idem for 'Multiculturalism, Muslims and Citizenship'.
Hence, there is a clear and authoritative source saying that it is not derogatory and five so-called sources in which I didnt manage to find any reference any reference at all to the word 'moro'. I am not the best when searching at ebooks, but unless someone else finds any of the related words, these sources (and the claim they are apparently supporting) should be removed.MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 09:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Categories: