Maghrevi

Hi Maghrevi, if you wish to add material to the article on the Moors you need to find academic sources to do so. Just making assertions will not do. Also, you are trying to ""edit war" the material into the article - by repeatedly reverting content. That's not allowed under Wikipedia's WP:3RR rule. Please ensure that you do not revert to your preferred version again today. Engage in discussion on the talk page. Paul B (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

to Paul B

I stated sources, Strabo, Bochart, Polybe, Diodor of Cicily What are your sources? Disodor of Seville ?! It is you who only say assemptions.

The word "moor" have evolved yes, but it still means the people that lived in North africa and Iberia from 8 to 16 century, and those people were not black. The word's etymology itself didn't come from black. When you speak about the moors, you have to say in which era you are talking of -as you say; so why you generalising starting from a false supposition. The term "moor" meant in european languages, for the next centuries following the reconquista, simply the Muslims (the wester muslims, parallel to "saracens" in the east) and because the Muslim religion is universialist, black subsaharans were also included in the muslim society and hence were too but not exclusively called Moors although they were a minority. Maybe the word moor evolved lately to mean black, but the Moors were not a black people and are not! And the etymology of the word is clear as the sun shine but you like to decieve the people.

Moor comes from Mauri, wich comes from a native name, SO STOP YOUR PROPAGANDA !

Writing in state of near-hysteria does not help very much. And no one is adding content out of some desire to "deceive people". Don't be absurd. By sources, I mean academic sources. By the way, the current sources are not 'mine'. They were added by many editors over the years. Paul B (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If you continue to revert I will report you for violation of WP:3RR. Paul B (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I will report you for acts of Propagada and deceprtion! I presume you do not have any knowledge about the History of North Africa. If you do then it is a clear act of deception!

Just to note, that though your text is uncited (and, I'm afraid, frequently misspelled), you are right that the article should include material on the etymology beyond the - probably incorrect - statements of Isodore. But these have to be sourced to suitable academic writing on the etymology. I'm guessing that you are copying this information from some source. Instead of making wild accusations, identify your sources. Paul B (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

And what are you academic sources?!

As I said, making accusations is not helpful. Just help by saying where you are getting your information. The source for the statement is Staying Roman: Conquest and Identity in Africa and the Mediterranean by Jonathan Conant. Paul B (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Mr B. Paul, It is quite an angrying thing to find that the history and identity of my people is being taking away from them in in the internet platform which is best of tools of propaganda. People believe what they see in the internet without further research or any academic effort. i have cited sources but you just have (perhaps intentionaly) not seen.

Please refer to:

"Histoir ancienne de l'afrique du nord" of Stéphane Gsell

"Essai historique sur les races anciennes et modernes de l'Afrique septentrionale : leurs origines, leurs mouvements et leurs transformations, depuis l'antiquité la plus reculée jusqu'à nos jours" of Pascal Duprat

"Histoire et archéologie de l'Afrique du Nord"

"Projet d'exploration dans l'Afrique centrale" of Léon Lacroix

"Souvenirs d'une exploration scientifique dans le nord de l'Afrique. Histoire des monuments mégalithiques de Roknia, près d'Hammam-Meskhoutin" Of R. Bourguignat

"L'Afrique du Nord : description, histoire, armée, populations, administration et colonisation" of Jules Gérard

You referred to the names of some ancient writers, but did not indicate where you were getting your information. So where in these sources is the relevant information? Paul B (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of there writers are among the most inescapable every student of the History of North africa must read of. If you haven't read any, then you probabely know so little about the subject that your are editing. I will re-read in order to find the exact position of the lines of reference in each book so you can refer to them, although i recomand you to at least read the first one i cited above.

The first Book; "Histoire ancienne de l'Afrique du nord" by Stéphan Gsell, Book V, pages 90, 91 : "Au IIIe siècle avant notre ère, la plupart des indigènes qui vivent entre le territoire punique et l’Océan forment trois nations, à la tête desquelles sont des rois. L’une d’elles s’étend sur le Nord du Maroc. C’est celle des Maures, appelés par les Grecs Μαυρούσιοι. Ce nom se trouve dans Polybe et dans de nombreux auteurs plus récents. Il fut en usage avant Polybe : il se lisait dans le texte grec de l’inscription bilingue d’Hannibal. Diodore de Sicile l’emploie en racontant des événements qui se passèrent à la fin du Ve siècle, et en l’empruntant peut-être à Timée (début du IIIe siècle). Des Romains qui se servent de sources grecques le transcrivent parfois sous la forme Maurusii ; on rencontre aussi l’adjectif Maurusius chez des poètes et même sur des inscriptions latines d’Afrique. Mais, comme le fait remarquer Strabon, le nom latin était Mauri, dont on a une foule d’exemples, depuis l’auteur du Bellum Africum et Salluste ; c’est par imitation des Romains que quelques Grecs de l’époque impériale écrivent Μαΰροι, au lieu de Μαυρούσιοι. Le nom en usage chez les indigènes était, ajoute Strabon, le même que chez les Romains ; il devait donc ressembler beaucoup plus à Mauri qu’à Μαυρούσιοι. Nous n’avons aucun exemple de la forme punique(1). Diverses étymologies ont été proposées dans l’antiquité et de nos jours(2). Il faut naturellement écarter celle que donnait le récit contenu dans les libri Punici du roi Hiempsal et reproduit par Salluste : Mauri aurait été une déformation par les indigènes du nom des Medi, des Mèdes, compagnons d’Hercule avec des Perses et des Arméniens. Il faut aussi rejeter l’étymologie qu’on a tirée du mot grec μάΰρος (pour άμαυρός), « obscur », et qu’on a prétendu expliquer par le teint foncé des indigènes(4) : sans avoir besoin d’autres arguments, constatons(5) que les Grecs disaient Μαυρούσιοι ; ils n’ont adopté que par exception la forme Μαΰροι, d’après l’usage latin.

1. Salluste (Jug., XVIII, 10), citant les libri Punici du roi Hiempsal, écrit : « Nomen eorum [des Mèdes] paulatim Libyes conrupere, barbara lingua Mauros pro Medis adpellantes ». Il est à croire que, dans le texte punique, les deux noms désignant les Mèdes et les Maures avaient plus de ressemblance que les mots latins Medi et Mauri : autrement, cette origine attribuée au nom des Maures ne se comprendrait pas (conf. t. I, p. 335). 2. Je laisse de côté des étymologies invraisemblables, entre autres celle de Sabatier (Rev. d’anthropol., 1884. p. 414), alléguant un mot berbère qui signifierait les Montagnards, et celle de Judas (Sur l’écriture et la langue berbères, p. 27), qui retrouve ici un nom punique signifiant les Troglodytes. 3. V. supra. n. 1. 4. Cette étymologie date, au plus tard, des environs de l’ère chrétienne, car Manilius (IV, 727-8) y fait allusion : voir t. I, p. 285, n. 2. Elle a été reprise par quelques érudits modernes. 5. Avec Tissot, Géographie de la province romaine d’Afrique, I, p. 392 et 445. 6. En français, on emploie familièrement le mot moricaud, qui vient de More, pour désigner des gens au teint basané. 7. Geographia sacra (édit. de Caen, 1646), p. 544. 8. P. ex., de Chénier, Recherches historiques sur les Maures, I, p. 38 ; Vivien de Saint-Martin, l.c., p. 100 ; Tissot, 1. c., I, p. 392 ; E. Cat, Essai sur la prov. romaine de Maurétanie Césarienne, p. 55 ; Quedenfeldt, dans Rev. afric., XLVI, 1902, p. 84.

Do you think you could give over the tedious playground taunting. Frankly, your edits do not show signs of deep scholarly knowledge, but come across as adolescent puffery. There, now we're even. Several of these sources are positively sclerotic. Stéphan Gsell? Wow. Nevertheless, there's some useful materail here. Paul B (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You do not even know these historians and you edit on a content upon which you have scarce knowledge. Its your edit have that have no scholarly background. You used the word "derogately" many times, and other words that gives a lesser sight on the subject, you give one source for your etymology and quote from someone who may have never visited any north African country before. These are signs of clear intoxication.

Yes Stephan Gsell and all i cited above. At least they know what they are talking about. ANd Gsell quoted from Salluste, Strabo, Polybe and many others on the matter, where did your academic source quote from? And by the way who of the Europeans in the modern times know the north africans more than the french who invaded them for almost a century. You only help the Afrocentrist who suddenly woke up and found they have no History and tried to eat up on their neighbors, The moors and the egyptians. You left no choice propagandist

Have even read the Book of Leo Africanus "Description of Africa" ( his real name : Al-Hasan bnu-Mohammad Al-Wazzan, the Moor of Grenada who left for Fez after the last Moorish Kingdom fell to the christians) where Leo speaks about his people the Berbers, (who are the indigenous of north africa and the core of the Moorish society) and describes them as white in contrast to the Negros to the south of the Sahara to which he had to carry a number of diplomatic missions for the Saadian King of Fez. Ignorant Propagandist

There is no such thing as a white Berber, the original Berbers were black Africans who have inhabited North Africa long before whites even existed, black people are the only people indigenous to the continent, so therefore you and your people are the ones trying to steal our history, whites didn't even exist until 12,000 years ago according to scientists, and we've been in Africa since our creation 150,000 years ago so you and your people go back to Europe and get out of our homeland "STOP YOUR PROPOGANDA" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.197.194 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)