Talk:Al-Mu'tamid ibn Abbad

Bisexuality

This statement "Al-Mu'tamid was bisexual. He was lover and patron to the Andalusi Arabic poet Ibn Ammar..." is sourced to a book called "Homosexuality and civilization". It is not a known undisputed fact but a minority view or a theory which should either be deleted or identified as such to the reader; e.g. by adding the name of the author who holds this view per WP:UNDUE. --Tachfin (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please demonstrate your case with some sources before changing the one cited. If there are alternatives then present the evidence. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

For example - here is another reference to a homosexual lover affair: http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/article.php?issue=20110826&page=16

Contaldo80 (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The author is a specialist of "gay studies", not a historian or a scholar of this period/area, and holds a minority view. In the absence of other independent scholarly sources, I'm inclined not to believe him. The same goes for another writer having another cause.

Who are "Friday times" and who is Salma Mahmud? a historian?...no, thank you.

Frankly, how is it bothering you that I attribute a claim to its author? If there were an agreement on this (i.e. many scholarly sources that say the same thing) I wouldn't. Until you prove otherwise, this remains a theory which should be attributed to its proponent per WP:UNDUE. It's up to you to demonstrate that what "Louis Crompton" wrote is credible. You make a claim, you prove it, it's not the other way around. I cannot possibly find a source for the lack of something. Now, that being said, I'm not suggesting to delete this bit only to attribute it to its author. --Tachfin (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You speak with such authority on an issue that I suspect you know very little about. I've added another 4 sources now. I can add another 20 if you want me to. Incidentally, Crompton is not a "specialist in gay studies" but rather Emeritus Professor of Literature at the University of Kentucky. But even if was a specialist in gay studies, why do you think he should have been dismissed as an untrustworthy source. Are such specialists inevitably biased?! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks for adding more refs. I'll investigate the issue and give feedback. What I know is that all of the primary/secondary sources on Al-Mu'tamid, that I have read, make no mention of such a thing. I could have missed some, but it's also possible that it's only a theory with conflictual views on it.

P.S: I've consulted Crompton's book on gbooks, but I don't have access to his footnotes. If you have the paper copy of the book can you please point me to the refs he used for Al-Mu'tamid's account. Thanks--Tachfin (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sara

Nassim 105.156.20.221 (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Al-Mu'tamid ibn Abbad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/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 to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)