Talk:Sayyida al Hurra

Image

A very interesting article. But I have doubts about the image. Muslim women of the 16th century were always veiled and they never posed for painters. There are a few portraits of Muslim women (like Roxelana) of the 16th century. But these reflect the imagination of the painters rather than the women. I looked up for the author of the image. But the source is an ambigious link [1] about Muslim Women rulers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right Nedim. This image is not of Sayyida. I contacted the webmaster of the site this image is displayed at, and he told me it is an image of a Moroccan woman that he took from a book. I will remove it from the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Ref "Sayyida" is a) fiction and b) self-published. "Guide2WomenLeaders" is self-published. "OttomanTraders" is a) a role-playing website and b) self-published. None of these even come close to being reliable sources. They simply cannot be used. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK I removed those.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Same problem with the new ref "Sayyida al-Hurra," though. IUniverse is a pay-to-publish site. Books from there are never reliable secondary sources. And it's cited to a blog! Seriously... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It was an error. This source was not published by IUniverse. I fixed it now.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

So now it's on a blog. Still not reliable. Anyone can say whatever they want on Wordpress. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Listen,I could have written a few new articles in the time we're discussing the sourcing for this one :-) OK, I used the same article published in pdf format. The author has an article about him on Spanish wikipedia. He is a reliable author. I hope it is ok now. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's still from a self-published website! If the information about her marriage is true, surely it can be found in a reliable source, and is it really so important to call her a "Renaissance woman" that we have to use unreliable sources? (The author is notable, but per WP:SPS, that doesn't automatically make this reference authoritative.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This source is cited by this book, and it was published in REVISTA "EL LEGADO ANDALUSÍ" Nº 18. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If we can be sure that the text is the same, let's cite it with the {{Cite journal}} template. (This article is not exactly the same, but it's same author/same subject/reliable website.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Assesment

I am not sure about low importance for women in history. She was very, very important figure as a Muslim woman.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going by the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History/Assessment, which seemed to indicate that "low" would be appropriate, but if you want to change it to "mid," I certainly won't change it back. No big deal to me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No big deal fro me either.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)