Talk:Yusuf ibn Tashfin

Untitled
I reverted the anonymous edit of Tashfine as black, deleting the ident as Berber. The Black ident may be right, or not. I do not know of anything attesting to Tashfine's skin colour nor perceived "race"; however it is well attested that he was Berber, ergo the current version should stand. (collounsbury (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC))

Birth Date
I changed the birth that was mistakenly put as his reign start by "Unknown" as it is not known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zouhair (talk • contribs) 08:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Yusuf ibn Tashfin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001223639/http://ebooks.ebookmall.com/ebook/225154-ebook.htm to http://ebooks.ebookmall.com/ebook/225154-ebook.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about references and writing style
Hello everyone,

I am new to working with Wikipedia so please bear with me as I point out some of the issues I am seeing with this article.

Firstly, for many facts there are no references at all. For example, it is written that "Yusuf went on to live to 100 years old." Not only is there no reference for this, but it also contradicts the information in the infobox, according to which Yusuf lived to be 97 years old (and there is no reference for that, either). The "Legacy" section has no references at all.

Secondly, some of the text in this article is opinionated and not written in encyclopedic style. Again, for example, in the "Legacy" section we have the following: "While Yusef was the most honorable of Muslim rulers, he spoke Arabic poorly." Not only does this not read well in an encyclopedia article, but the relevance of this information to the topic and especially the other information in this section is questionable.

I hope we can pay attention to these issues, and would love to hear your feedback. Hassamm (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Yusuf ibn Tashfin biography
Helo there. Many authors mention his links to Himyar. According to WP:Mainstream is worth mentioning on the page. Wetter it is a myth or not. Cheers --AlaskaLava (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC) <--- CU confirmed sock of User:AlaskaLava
 * You are misrepresenting the source. The author is discussing the claims as myths of origin. You need to read all of the chapter to understand her points. Check page: 59 "This material was analysed by Harry T. Norris, who, discussing the “Himyari myth” and its relationship to the origin of the Almoravids, showed the link between the tales on the subject preserved in Arabic sources and older traditions, in which even Alexander the Great plays an important role." and page 63: "The Almoravids were not the only Berbers to use genealogical traditions as a means to reinforce their legitimacy. According to Norris, the propagation of these myths of origin has a great deal to do with the need of the society that used them to address social, political or religious changes."
 * Per WP:Contextmatters, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." The author is not supporting the "Himyari myth", she's just discussing the historical context where the myth was made and the authors that propagated it.
 * And where did you get that Ibn Tashfin wrote a book? Do you have any sources for this claim?

-TheseusHeLl (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The second citation mentions Yusuf himself claiming Himyar. The Himyarite link with Yusuf is worthy of being mentioned on the page wetter it is a myth or not. Just because something is a myth does not mean it should be completely removed from an article. Also mentioning it on the page gives people and understanding of the social and political state of that time. I do agree that you have the right to outline it as a myth. Cheers --AlaskaLava (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC) <--- CU confirmed sock of User:AlaskaLava
 * The second source is an outdated 1912 source. Mentioning the nisba and claiming that "In the biography of Yusuf it's written that the Sanjaha tribe originally descends from the Arabian Yemeni tribe of Himyar." and "He is given the nisba or appellation Al Himyari. In doing so he himself claimed descent from Arabs and Yemen" is giving weight to a medieval myth and is a clear misrepresentation of Helena de Felipe's work (where she's just giving context to the medieval fabrications and discussing the the authors).
 * When you're saying "In the biography of Yusuf". What biography? Do you mean a medieval biography like Ibn Khallikan's or what? You know that these biographies are wp:primary, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." and "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." You know that the work you're citing "Genealogy and Knowledge in Muslim Societies: Understanding the Past" goes against the wp:pov you're pushing? And that you need to read the whole chapter 4 to understand what Helena de Felipe means when she's discussing this myth?-TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If this claim is accepted by modern historians why it was never mentioned by authoritative secondary sources like the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition (by Halima Ferhat)? Do you understand that what you're pushing is your WP:POV and a misrepresentation of a source? And what you're doing is called giving weight to medieval myths.-TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's take an example of what you're doing here. If I read a book discussing all the medieval claims about King Arthur, Does that mean that king Arthur is a real person and that I should go to the article and remove legendary from the lead? Just because hundreds of secondary sources are discussing the myths doesn't mean that King Arthur is real. Just because the source you're giving discusses the medieval "himyari myth" doesn't mean that it's real and that we should gave weight to it. Do you understand? -TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When you're saying in this edit summary "How he called himself in his book and what he wrote about..". What do you mean? Are you claiming that Ibn Tashfin wrote something about himself? Do you know that Ibn Tashfin was actually illiterate and the only language that he knew was Berber? -TheseusHeLl (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Even the specialist of pre-islamic Arabia, Christien Robin, said that, "The relatively late Legends on the Himyarite origin of the Berbers certainly responded to the desire of Maghrebis to find prestigious Ancestors in Arabia. For this, the Ḥimyarites had the advantage of offering a symbolic inheritance in escheat." -TheseusHeLl (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)