Talk:Moors

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)

where is this claim coming from it clearly doesn't exist in the first source and I couldn't find it in any Greek writing, the only word for "black people" was Ethiopian which meant burnt face, why are we letting black supremacist control the narrative 68.9.255.238 (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

DNA evidence clearly shows moors were not black and there is not a single example of ancient Greeks referring to blacks as moors, the word Ethiopia is clearly a Greek word and how they referred to blacks 68.9.255.238 (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the lead make it clear that this article is about the word "Moor", which makes sense. But then it turns to the history of Muslim Sicily and Al-Andalus, artificially forcing bizarre wording like "Aghlabid Moors" (which is entirely unattested in WP:RS), with sections below about the "Moors of the Maghreb", "Moors of Iberia", and "Moors of Sicily".

Considering that there is no defined "Moorish people", as the article makes clear to begin with, I don't see why we're including a selection of not-strictly-related topics in Muslim/Mediterranean history that are already covered by dedicated articles elsewhere. The inclusion of Sicily is especially odd: the term "Moors" is old-fashioned but common when speaking of the Iberian Peninsula, but I don't think the same is true of Sicily. The "Notable Moors" section is likewise very questionable; how can one be a notable member of an undefined group?

If the article's scope is to make sense, then it needs to be an article about a word (WP:WORDISSUBJECT), which would mean cutting most of the rest. It would make sense to keep a short overview about "Moors" in the Iberian Peninsula as a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE linking to al-Andalus (and maybe Moriscos), given common usage of this term in that context until recently. But not much more. A useful benchmark for comparison might be the "Moors" entry in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World (, free copy accessible here) R Prazeres (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed that seemingly the same issue was brought up in this discussion a few years ago, with apparent agreement by three editors, but nothing happened. Courtesy ping to Nø, Carlstak, and Srnec, who were part of that discussion. If there is agreement again here, maybe we can discuss practical implementation (e.g. should we delete, condense, transfer material?). Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

As is clear from my earlier involvement, I support the view that this article should be about a word and its connotations. If there is need to discuss actual groups that are properly designated (or self-identify as) "Moors", that should be relegated either to a separate section on that use, or a separate article.

To maintain this balance, it will probably be necessary to be very explicit about the focus in the lead.

But I am far from an expert; I have not perused the various sources; I am not going to make radical changes. I came to this article through interest in Shakespeare's Othello (and its ambiguity on "race" or ethnicity), and I merely react on internal evidence: The article is a mess, and something should be done, and it seems to me the way to bring order is to make it as an article on a word, not on one or more groups of people. Nø (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

PS. Earlier discussion posts touching on this:

• Talk:Moors/Archive 9#"In 711, troops mostly formed by Moors from northern Africa led the Umayyad conquest" ...
• Talk:Moors/Archive 9#This should be an article about a word, not about a people
• Talk:Moors/Archive 9#Any reason dark skinned moors are not mentioned or depicted?
• Talk:Moors/Archive 9#Moor Means Black

(there are probably more).

I'd like to add: I think that what this article should be, can be compared to what the article Nigger should be: An article on a word that generelly expresses prejudice, though there may in the past have been instances where it was used neutrally, and though it today as an act of empowerment has been adopted by some of the people it could refer to.Nø (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

R Prazeres, I agree with your points. As you say: "artificially forcing bizarre wording", "there is no defined "Moorish people", and "it needs to be an article about a word".

I think these points made by the ECB article you (R Prazeres) cite speak to User Nø's comment that "a word that generally expresses prejudice" and its use as as an act of empowerment:

In Spain, the term is still used, inaccurately and often disparagingly, in reference to Arabs or Muslims of diverse origin.

More commonly, however, it was a racial designation for dark-skinned or black peoples, as in its English usage

Since the mid-twentieth century, the term has fallen out of use and carries racial connotations. More commonly, however, it was a racial designation for dark-skinned or black peoples, as in its English usage.

R Prazeres is well-qualified by editing experience and knowledge of the subject to make the changes he suggests, and I would support them. Carlstak (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I still see the word sometimes used as a straightforward anglicization of the Latin Mauri (), so I don't necessarily agree that it generally expresses prejudice. There are comments on this talk page concerned that the article whitewashes the Moors! Of course, on the substantive point about the article itself, I agree. It should be about the history of terminology, but not like Nigger. More like Vlachs or Saracen. —Srnec (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

N.B. We have Blackamoor (decorative arts) and Moor's head, but Blackamoor is a dab page. Srnec (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback from all. I see that there's agreement on the main question and I essentially agree with all of the above. I'm busy this week, but I'm happy to work on this later this month by removing or transferring the out-of-scope material. R Prazeres (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, before I forget or delay this further, I will implement this as best as I can today/tonight. I think some of the material, especially if generic or poorly-sourced, is easiest to simply remove because it is either poorly-sourced or clearly covered in many articles elsewhere. Where the content seems to be actually useful and sourced, I'll move to another article (where it can be revised as needed). If there are further questions or concerns, feel free to bring them up here. R Prazeres (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'm roughly done. See my individual edit summaries for further explanation, but overall: a lot of unsourced content has been removed; some sourced content has been transferred to Al-Andalus () and Muslim Sicily (); and some generic or inconsistently-sourced material has been cut due to redundancy, given the more detailed coverage at relevant articles elsewhere. Also did some clean up of links and lists at the bottom of the article, much of which needed to be trimmed regardless of the scope issue mentioned above. I've also added some general information on the word's history and usage relating to medieval Muslims (mainly using the Oxford Encyclopedia reference noted above). I'm not entirely sure if the content of the "In heraldry" section should also be moved to Moor's head or another article, as this is a subtopic I'm less familiar with, so I've left that alone for now. Beyond that, some improvements are likely still needed here and there but the article should make a lot more sense now. R Prazeres (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The article defines Moor as a European exonym used by Christian Europeans, but then inconsistently traces its roots through non-European sources like Phoenician. At the same time, it treats Moor as an umbrella term that encompasses all European designations for Muslim populations, such as Moros in Spain, while excluding similar non-European variations. This framing appears to selectively construe the word as uniquely European and introduces unnecessary bias. Wikitekt (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

So if there is a section on White and Sub-Saharan African Moors why is the lede only discussing Arab, and Berber Moors? When everyone knows so-called Black people have also always been identified as moors in literature. Inayity (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The section on "white Moors" and "Black Moors" is written rather confusingly and doesn't make enough use of secondary sources (it quotes a lot of primary sources without much context). Following this comment, I've tried to add to and re-organize it to compensate a little for that, though not much (). Among other issues: the sources cited on "white Moors" and "black Moors" in Mauritania (the only modern usage of this) merely describe the current situation and not the origins/history of that terminology in this specific local context (which, in the absence of sources clarifying this, may or may not be directly related to historical European usage), so this point probably belongs more to the "Modern meanings" section as is.

This edit was a little undue, given that the most common usage readers would come across is clearly its generic designation for Muslims in the medieval western, of which sub-Saharan Africans were not the main element, but I've retained it with adjustment and a couple of additions to the lead. R Prazeres (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Moor is more commonly associated with "black people" and I have been editing occasionally on this article for over a decade and have seen it constantly put in and pulled out. A Google search of Moor clearly shows what most people associate with Moor. Most common usage is with Afrocentrics and Black culture. Just a casual look at YouTube again shows a battle of the Black Moor vs the White Moor. Like Race in Ancient Egypt, it is a divisive topic split along racial lines. See also previous discussions, which are now archived. --Inayity (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Moor is more commonly associated with "black people" it's not. In terms of skin colour (which is irrelevant to the history of the Moors), the term Moor was associated with "darker than white" people, i.e., North Africans. The so-called "dark Moor" started to appear in European racialized discourse (mostly in theatres, where faces were blackened for effect) in the 17th century (after the Moors were expelled from the Iberian Peninsula) to construct and perpetuate the false narrative of European superiority over the "darker" others. M.Bitton (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I second M.Bitton's comment. The depiction of Moors as black in European art and literature has more to do with racial and cultural assumptions by Europeans, as well as an attempt to make them look as distinct from Europeans as possible. The term itself does not seem to be related to skin color, and originally derived from Mauri, meaning Berber inhabitant of Mauretania, though according to Pliny the Elder it may have further back referred to a specific tribe or clan in Mauretania (see The Natural History of Pliny). Ideophagous (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I think something must have slipped the two people above. black people please read this article has nothing to do with Black skin. So please explain to me how black people or Black Africans has anything to do with actual skin color? Like I said this is not a new debate. And the two of you agreeing to the same mythology is amazing. Where in God's creation does being a Black person = black skin? It is amazing how in 2025 people still think Black people (hence why I refuse to use color for any people, it is very colonial and backward) = actual skin color. Right now, per Google, when I say Moor what does it mean? What comes up? That is who is reading this article and bringing their perception with them. --Inayity (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Please explain what "Black" stands for (if not the colour). M.Bitton (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, You do not get to do that when black people is a wikipedia entry. If not a color? Its only a color now?--Inayity (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Inayity This sounds like an American viewpoint trying to foist itself as a universal concept. Outside an American context, I have never heard of or seen anyone except people with black skin or at least some black ancestry (e.g. if they have a non-black parent, or have some skin condition that makes them look not black) refer to themselves as "black". North Africans never refer to themselves as "black", despite being Africans. I don't know about white Africans of European ancestry in places like South Africa, but I've never heard or read that they referred to themselves as "black" either. This whole division of people into "white" vs "black" is an American, and somewhat more generally Western thing. In other cultural contexts, it may at best only hold true to some extent if at all, and other racial divisions and nomenclatures apply, which relate to the specific history of those regions. Furthermore, applying the term "black" with a modern (American) connotation on Moors is rather anachronistic, since the term "Moors" itself is no longer used to refer to any modern populations (except Afrocentrists and some crazy Moroccan nationalists), and its meaning until the early modern period clearly referred to populations within North Africa and Andalusia, and sometimes more broadly to Muslims, regardless of skin color. Ideophagous (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

"since the term "Moors" itself is no longer used to refer to any modern populations" => except the aforementioned + the ones mentioned in the article, but those just emphasize the point that it's not about skin color or being "black". Ideophagous (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Where is the photo gallery of so-called Moorish depictions throughout history? That got deleted also. Depictions of Othello, yet I am told "most people" [] Inayity (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Othello?? Did you read this comment? M.Bitton (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I see nothing there that speaks to what I just wrote.--Inayity (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Compare this article to this one what happened? All the work people now look at the state it is in. --Inayity (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

This policy was applied: MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. See Talk:Moors/Archive_8#Depiction_of_Moors. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)