This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tariq ibn Ziyad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 19, 2004, July 19, 2005, July 19, 2006, July 19, 2007, and July 19, 2008. |
The article addresses that we are not sure of Tariq's ethnicity. So why does it state that he is a Berber commander in the first couple sentences?
the pure history does not have concerning the arabic speesh of Tariq ibn-Ziyad, as tarik ibn ziyad have burned no ships. because its army could not understand arabic, because they were berber, the Arabs have crossed with moussa ibn nusayr in 712 to Spain, therefore why do you thinks that a berber will speak a arabic with army of berber-speaking in the time of the war.i will improve it later. Aziri 13:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The european couldn't comprehend that an army of 12,000 can defeat an army of the 100,000 warriors, so they invented this story in order to underestimate the victory of muslims in Andalusia.
Kindly reveiw the reasons below and hopefully to mention the both side of story on the article as I believe that this is a free encyclopedia, I didn't delete any part of the european version of the story, please retain our side of story.
There is no mentioning of this accident of burning the ships in Muslim books, the only mentioning of this claimed accident is in European books.
Number of reasons that Tariq ibn Ziyad couldn't burn the ships:
1- Not all of the ships were Muslims owned (the leader of port septe owned ships which sailed with Muslims in exchange of lands in Andalusia).
2- The consequences of burning the ships should be thanked or punished by Calipha. (also no books mentioned that Calipha either thanked or punished Tariq).
3- It is forbidden to destroy public property in Islam (he could simply send the ships away home)
4-
Musa ibn Nusair sent enforcements to Tariq ibn Zyad (how could he sent these enforcement while the ships were burnt).
The dilemma of burning the ships stayed in dispute between Muslims and the west.
I disagree, he may have burned a couple of ships, two or three, just to symbolize there was no going back, to boost morale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.154.84 ( talk) 20:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
no leader in his right sense would cut off his back lines with the capital city or the nearest stronghold in Africa which could send him reinforcements when he needs it. So that makes us conclude that this event is fake story.
Um, you know it doesn't say or even imply in the article that he was speaking in Arabic, Berber, Russian, Chinese, or anything? - Mustafaa 05:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
While no implications were made, it is curious that this is much the same story as attached to Ferdinand Cortez upon landing in South America. It would be nice to have a source on this.
I have linked a source. DigiBullet 20:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
i have never seen that someone knows the amazighs or berberes beter than themselves i am berbere and amazigh and i speak arabic can you just explain this to me and 90% of the berbers speak arabic as you said it is written in the european story do you speak arabic to say that it is not written in the arabic book finally i have never seen a man that he knows arabic better than the arabic themselves and their book.you know our story better than us.i think you should go to study more and more.by the way do you know that there is someone who is called translater to translate from arabic to berbere.
The entry needs a lot of clean-up; it reads as if someone wrote it using a translation engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.183.60 ( talk) 05:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The right arabic pronunciation of the name is Tarik bin Ziyad, rather than Tarik ibn Ziyad.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zozo2kx ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The real berber name is tarik naït ziad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.112.179.105 ( talk) 16:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I wrote some modifications on this text because I have noticed false things. Today, any historian can give the birth date and birth place of Tariq.
You will find very interesting things on French wikipedia and on Britannica Encyclopedy online.
Friendly yours.FF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.244.139.5 ( talk) 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Some user just deleted a complete section from the article with no valid reasons (it's sourced) also deleted complete guy name (sourced) i'm reverting, unless good reasons, stop vandalizing. - Dzlinker ( talk) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
In addition, someone, whether yourself or another, has altered the name which appears at the introductory sentence of the article to quote some ancestors "Abdellah" and "Walghu", and for authority has cited a book "The Golden Age of the Moor" which is very poorly referenced. There are many differing accounts of the parentage and origins of Tariq, of whom the only thing that is generally (but not universally) agreed is that his nasab begins "ibn Ziyad". If you wish to add to the list of 3 possibilities that I set up, please do ... but do not cite "The Golden Age of the Moor" because the author does not say where he got that information from, for all we know he could be making it up. MisterCDE ( talk) 10:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This may arouse very strong feelings and infighting but is posted here only for scholarliness. The article is very informative and gives multiple accounts of his ethnic origin yet the opening sentence of the article sets him as, without other possibilites, Berber. A more correct form would be: Tariq ibn Ziyad (Arabic: طارق بن زياد, died 720) was a Muslim Berber, Arab or Persian general who led the Islamic conquest of Visigothic Hispania in 711-718 A.D. Mazighe ( talk) 04:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It is necessary to wash the history from Bedouin fake. Taric (Tarik) has never been part of the Amazigh (Berber) anthroponymes and this name means absolutely nothing. In fact, he was Wisgothe prince heir, grandson of King Alaric, whose throne was usurped by an imposter. Taric was a refugee in Tamazgha (North Africa) where he trained units of agar-Berber mercenaries to reclaim his throne in Spain. There are so agar, Jews and Berbers also came to Spain in the year 711 it does not emphasize that no one had heard about neither Islam (the there was not at that time) or the Koran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adbouz ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This needs to be readdressed. User Mazighe makes a good point and my suggested edit is that the opening paragraph shouldn't be so sure about his ethnic origins as that would be intellectually dishonest. My suggestion is to be in line with the Arabic version of this article which translated says the following:
Historians have disagreed about the origins of Tariq ibn Ziyad, Andalusian scholars of the period such as Ibn Khallikan, Ibn Zarqala and Al-Maqqari have stated that he was an Arab. The Cambridge Islamic Encyclopedia as well as the Italian historian Paolo Giovio has suggested his Arabic origins from these sources. Some of them have stated that he was of Berber origin, among them to make this claim was Ibn Idhari. Others still have suggested his origins may lie in Persia.
82.11.55.192 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I have (again) removed the alleged "portrait" painting File:Tariq01.png [2]. This image is problematic on two levels. First, the claim that it is meant as a representation of Tariq is unsourced and unsubstantiated. This would need a reliable source. Second, even if such a source were provided, it would still have no encyclopedic use at the top of the article. There are (obviously) no real, authentic portraits of Tariq. He lived in a culture that simply didn't do portraits. If a 16th-century Italian painter created an imaginary portrait of him, that may be of some marginal interest in the context of a "legacy" section or something of the sort, but it still has no place in the infobox. It might tell us something about the way later centuries thought about Tariq (if that in turn could be sourced), but it tells us absolutely nothing about Tariq himself. We should never use later imaginary depictions of persons in infoboxes as if to imply they were what the person actually looked like.
Needless to say, the other picture that has repeatedly been inserted instead File:Tarik ibn Ziyad - .jpg is even worse and even more useless. It's a cheap, artistically worthless scribble by an utterly untalented 19th-century book illustrator. It looks more like a Gaulish warrior from an Asterix comic than anything else. The idea that this piece of artistic crap could be of any information value for our readers is just breathtakingly silly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In response to the edit war over Tariq's ethnicity:
Source(s) calling him an Arab:
Source mentioning him as Persian:
Does anyone else have sources? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
. Taric (Tarik) has never been part of the Amazigh (Berber) anthroponymes and this name means absolutely nothing. In fact, he was Wisgothe prince heir, grandson of King Alaric, whose throne was usurped by an imposter. Taric was a refugee in Tamazgha (North Africa) where he trained units of agar-Berber mercenaries to reclaim his throne in Spain. There are so agar, Jews and Berbers also came to Spain in the year 711 it does not emphasize that no one had heard about neither Islam (the there was not at that time) or the Koran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adbouz ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Tariq ibn Ziyad. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
This article has claimed a death date of 720 ever since its inceptions in 2004, but this was never sourced. From the biography section, it emerges that little or nothing is securely known about his later years after the Iberian campaign, so one wonders how such a precise death year could possibly be known. I've added a "citation needed" tag, for the moment. When looking for sources, please watch out for the danger of circular sourcing. On Google books, I've so far found no source making this claim and published before 2004, the time it was first introduced here – but there are now multiple books from after that year that echo the claim, suggesting they all got it from here. What we do find in sources from before 2004 is an estimate of "c. 720", which may well be plausible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This must be sourced, otherwise it's original reseaerch. Doug Weller talk 06:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
There's been some dispute about the strength of the sources in the Origin section. The references there look incomplete. But, in case anyone made the same mistake I did, the full references are actually given in the Literature section. I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to refactor the references on this page to make a clear link between the shortened references and the full ones, such as using anchors. It's a little complicated since the existing footnotes have explanatory notes alongside page numbers. I'm not going to change anything without input from other editors since there's already some consistency in the existing reference style and I don't want to force the use of specific templates if other editors object. clpo13( talk) 16:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tariq ibn Ziyad. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
This medieval miniature has repeatedly been inserted on this page as a depiction of Tariq. I have repeatedly removed it because it had no proper source and there was no evidence where it's from and whether it really does mean to depict him. I now researched its provenance a bit further and I now can confirm that it does indeed represent Tariq.
This picture is from Ms. 7415 in the Spanish National Library in Madrid, fol. 27. This [4] article (Rosa María Rodríguez Porto (2006): María de Molina y la educación de Alfonso XI: Las semblanzas de reyes des Ms. 7415 de la Biblioteca Nacional. Quintana: Revista de Estudos do Departamento de Historia de Arte 5: 219~231), on p. 227, provides this source and identifies the contents as "Rodrigo y Tariq". This is from a medieval compendium of biographies of historical rulers. One of the features of this book is that it regularly presents pairs of pictures of two rulers on the same page, whose reigns are then described underneath. The manuscript is dated to c. 1312.
This website features a much higher resolution copy of our miniature, with the context of the surrounding page, including the opposite image depicting Roderic.
An online text of the work, though from a different manuscript and in a slightly different textual version, is available at e-spania. Scroll for the text saying "Rodrigo, el postrímero rey de los godos, fue perdido en la batalla de Sangonera"; this corresponds to the text just underneath our picture. The text speaks of the fight between Tariq and Roderic, so it is indeed obviously plausible that this picture is meant to represent Tariq. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
BTW, this said, I leave it open if we should use the picture and where in the article. As per my thoughts at WP:PORTRAIT, I'm not convinced it should be at the top of the article, as it's still an entirely imaginary and not very high quality depiction from an era and culture separated from Tariq's own time by more than half a millennium. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
has an article on Tangiers (q.v.) that gives Tariq's name as Ṭāriḳ b. Zīyād al-Laithī. Any idea where the nisbah comes from and if it's worth mentioning in the article? — LlywelynII 12:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to revert, once more, the low-quality edits edit-warred in by User:Ozan33Ankara [5]. Several issues:
Greetings, can someone confirm this part After Roderic came to power in Spain, Julian had, as was the custom, sent his daughter, Florinda la Cava, to the court of the Visigothic king for education. It is said that Roderic raped her, and that Julian was so incensed he resolved to have the Muslims bring down the Visigothic kingdom. Accordingly, he entered into a treaty with Ṭāriq (Mūsā having returned to Qayrawan) to secretly convoy the Muslim army across the Straits of Gibraltar, as he owned a number of merchant ships and had his own forts on the Spanish mainland
It seems dubious.-- Ozan33Ankara ( talk) 14:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello M.Bitton, can you please explain what you think the issue is with this contribution? The fact is not that the khutba was/wasn't the first example of Moroccan literature in Arabic. As written, the fact is that Abdellah Guennoun characterized it as such in a very influential and historically significant book. That's totally relevant. If you can rephrase it to indicate that Guennoun had a nationalist bent, that's great too. إيان ( talk) 15:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
He is commonly known by his nasheed يا عابد الحرمين (ya abedal haramain)-oh slave of the holy places — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn al alm ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Owmarh: 1) Here's the section about his origin that, for some reason, you keep ignoring. 2) who is the author of you source (Brahim El Harram) and what are his credentials? 3) more important though, the source doesn't mention where Tariq was born, so why are you misrepresenting it? 4) You've also been asked to refrain from edit warring, so rather than keep adding what clearly doesn't belong in the infobox, I suggest you take your time to answer the questions that have been asked. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:40:C780:2CC0:7804:5143:D10:3952 ( talk) 17:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Born in 670 AD, Tariq Ibn Ziyad, a Berber who grew up in a Muslim Arab environment, was a member of the Al-Sadaf tribe, originally an Amazigh clan in Morocco's High Atlas Mountains that later converted to Islam. He joined Musa Ibn Nusair's army and became one of his best leaders.
Born in 670 AD, Tariq Ibn Ziyad, a Berber who grew up in a Muslim Arab environment, was a member of the Al-Sadaf tribe, originally an Amazigh clan in Morocco's High Atlas Mountains that later converted to Islam. He joined Musa Ibn Nusair's army and became one of his best leaders. 2601:40:C780:2CC0:7804:5143:D10:3952 ( talk) 17:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Born in 670 AD, Tariq Ibn Ziyad (Moroccan), a Berber who grew up in a Muslim Arab environment, was a member of the Al-Sadaf tribe, originally an Amazigh 2601:40:C780:2CC0:FCB3:4098:71A2:6587 ( talk) 20:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@Hamamat32
1) don't throw expressions like "POV pushing" around. 2) when you remove content, you're supposed to explain why. 3) the same goes for content that you change. For instance: you changed currently inhabits the
Béni Saf region in
Algeria
to while others as hailing from the
Beni Saf region
even though the source doesn't support your change. 4) If the overwhelming majority of modern RS, including the tertiary one (used to establish DUE), describe Tarik as a Berber, then so shall we. 5) the
Dictionary of African Biography that you referred to in your edit summary describes him as a Berber (quote: One convert was Tariq ibn Ziyad, a Berber slave belonging to Musa, who rose to become his deputy governor. With an army of twelve thousand soldiers, most of them Berbers, Tariq launched the Muslim conquest of Spain in 711.).
M.Bitton (
talk)
23:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I Read the Source 5. It does not Claim, that Tariq Ibn Zyad would have been born in Tlemcen. I don't understand the Arabic source, but Someone Should check it. Till it is confirmed, that the arabic source is reliable and states that he was born in Tlemcen, it should get deleted. Mosti95 ( talk) 09:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The English Source is not Claiming, what it saysreally? What does it say?
I don't understand the Arabic sourcethat's your problem. M.Bitton ( talk) 09:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
M.Bitton, I wonder why you're so quick to dismiss Mosti95's concern. It's true that much of what he wrote here is difficult to parse, but he made a quite tangible and testable argument in the beginning: he says he checked the Nicolle source and says it doesn't support the claim about the birth place. Do you have evidence to the contrary? The stuff that was originally added here [9] sounds prima facie dubious How could we possibly know anything about where he was born or where he lived "with his wife" at some stage of his career, if there are no written contemporary sources about his biography? And what kind of fact is "he is traditionally said to have been born in ..." supposed to be anyway? Are we reporting on anonymous oral traditions of historiography now? – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Dido789: please refrain from edit warring and seek the very consensus that you mentioned in your edit summary. Also, don't make false claims (especially when reverting someone). M.Bitton ( talk) 19:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
I added an image to this page in the past, and it was reverted with the edit reason "This image is fictitious." While I understand the concern about including only verifiable images, I noticed that other historical pages with images often include images that are believed to represent the subject, even if they are not verifiable photographs. i.e.
Adam,
Solomon, or
Baldwin V.
I would like to discuss the appropriateness of using such images on this page. Should this page be held to a different standard than other historical articles? Is there a way to clarify the image policy for historical figures? ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha ( 🧾 - 💬) 22:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello I don't know I didn't find my previous request, maybe there is a technical problem. I said that Ibn Khaldoun never said Tariq Ibn Ziyad was from Algeria. That's a lie, there are people who can actually trust this since they never read Ibn kahldoun. Be careful. 160.164.129.34 ( talk) 00:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tariq ibn Ziyad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 19, 2004, July 19, 2005, July 19, 2006, July 19, 2007, and July 19, 2008. |
The article addresses that we are not sure of Tariq's ethnicity. So why does it state that he is a Berber commander in the first couple sentences?
the pure history does not have concerning the arabic speesh of Tariq ibn-Ziyad, as tarik ibn ziyad have burned no ships. because its army could not understand arabic, because they were berber, the Arabs have crossed with moussa ibn nusayr in 712 to Spain, therefore why do you thinks that a berber will speak a arabic with army of berber-speaking in the time of the war.i will improve it later. Aziri 13:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The european couldn't comprehend that an army of 12,000 can defeat an army of the 100,000 warriors, so they invented this story in order to underestimate the victory of muslims in Andalusia.
Kindly reveiw the reasons below and hopefully to mention the both side of story on the article as I believe that this is a free encyclopedia, I didn't delete any part of the european version of the story, please retain our side of story.
There is no mentioning of this accident of burning the ships in Muslim books, the only mentioning of this claimed accident is in European books.
Number of reasons that Tariq ibn Ziyad couldn't burn the ships:
1- Not all of the ships were Muslims owned (the leader of port septe owned ships which sailed with Muslims in exchange of lands in Andalusia).
2- The consequences of burning the ships should be thanked or punished by Calipha. (also no books mentioned that Calipha either thanked or punished Tariq).
3- It is forbidden to destroy public property in Islam (he could simply send the ships away home)
4-
Musa ibn Nusair sent enforcements to Tariq ibn Zyad (how could he sent these enforcement while the ships were burnt).
The dilemma of burning the ships stayed in dispute between Muslims and the west.
I disagree, he may have burned a couple of ships, two or three, just to symbolize there was no going back, to boost morale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.154.84 ( talk) 20:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
no leader in his right sense would cut off his back lines with the capital city or the nearest stronghold in Africa which could send him reinforcements when he needs it. So that makes us conclude that this event is fake story.
Um, you know it doesn't say or even imply in the article that he was speaking in Arabic, Berber, Russian, Chinese, or anything? - Mustafaa 05:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
While no implications were made, it is curious that this is much the same story as attached to Ferdinand Cortez upon landing in South America. It would be nice to have a source on this.
I have linked a source. DigiBullet 20:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
i have never seen that someone knows the amazighs or berberes beter than themselves i am berbere and amazigh and i speak arabic can you just explain this to me and 90% of the berbers speak arabic as you said it is written in the european story do you speak arabic to say that it is not written in the arabic book finally i have never seen a man that he knows arabic better than the arabic themselves and their book.you know our story better than us.i think you should go to study more and more.by the way do you know that there is someone who is called translater to translate from arabic to berbere.
The entry needs a lot of clean-up; it reads as if someone wrote it using a translation engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.183.60 ( talk) 05:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The right arabic pronunciation of the name is Tarik bin Ziyad, rather than Tarik ibn Ziyad.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zozo2kx ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The real berber name is tarik naït ziad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.112.179.105 ( talk) 16:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I wrote some modifications on this text because I have noticed false things. Today, any historian can give the birth date and birth place of Tariq.
You will find very interesting things on French wikipedia and on Britannica Encyclopedy online.
Friendly yours.FF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.244.139.5 ( talk) 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Some user just deleted a complete section from the article with no valid reasons (it's sourced) also deleted complete guy name (sourced) i'm reverting, unless good reasons, stop vandalizing. - Dzlinker ( talk) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
In addition, someone, whether yourself or another, has altered the name which appears at the introductory sentence of the article to quote some ancestors "Abdellah" and "Walghu", and for authority has cited a book "The Golden Age of the Moor" which is very poorly referenced. There are many differing accounts of the parentage and origins of Tariq, of whom the only thing that is generally (but not universally) agreed is that his nasab begins "ibn Ziyad". If you wish to add to the list of 3 possibilities that I set up, please do ... but do not cite "The Golden Age of the Moor" because the author does not say where he got that information from, for all we know he could be making it up. MisterCDE ( talk) 10:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This may arouse very strong feelings and infighting but is posted here only for scholarliness. The article is very informative and gives multiple accounts of his ethnic origin yet the opening sentence of the article sets him as, without other possibilites, Berber. A more correct form would be: Tariq ibn Ziyad (Arabic: طارق بن زياد, died 720) was a Muslim Berber, Arab or Persian general who led the Islamic conquest of Visigothic Hispania in 711-718 A.D. Mazighe ( talk) 04:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It is necessary to wash the history from Bedouin fake. Taric (Tarik) has never been part of the Amazigh (Berber) anthroponymes and this name means absolutely nothing. In fact, he was Wisgothe prince heir, grandson of King Alaric, whose throne was usurped by an imposter. Taric was a refugee in Tamazgha (North Africa) where he trained units of agar-Berber mercenaries to reclaim his throne in Spain. There are so agar, Jews and Berbers also came to Spain in the year 711 it does not emphasize that no one had heard about neither Islam (the there was not at that time) or the Koran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adbouz ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
This needs to be readdressed. User Mazighe makes a good point and my suggested edit is that the opening paragraph shouldn't be so sure about his ethnic origins as that would be intellectually dishonest. My suggestion is to be in line with the Arabic version of this article which translated says the following:
Historians have disagreed about the origins of Tariq ibn Ziyad, Andalusian scholars of the period such as Ibn Khallikan, Ibn Zarqala and Al-Maqqari have stated that he was an Arab. The Cambridge Islamic Encyclopedia as well as the Italian historian Paolo Giovio has suggested his Arabic origins from these sources. Some of them have stated that he was of Berber origin, among them to make this claim was Ibn Idhari. Others still have suggested his origins may lie in Persia.
82.11.55.192 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I have (again) removed the alleged "portrait" painting File:Tariq01.png [2]. This image is problematic on two levels. First, the claim that it is meant as a representation of Tariq is unsourced and unsubstantiated. This would need a reliable source. Second, even if such a source were provided, it would still have no encyclopedic use at the top of the article. There are (obviously) no real, authentic portraits of Tariq. He lived in a culture that simply didn't do portraits. If a 16th-century Italian painter created an imaginary portrait of him, that may be of some marginal interest in the context of a "legacy" section or something of the sort, but it still has no place in the infobox. It might tell us something about the way later centuries thought about Tariq (if that in turn could be sourced), but it tells us absolutely nothing about Tariq himself. We should never use later imaginary depictions of persons in infoboxes as if to imply they were what the person actually looked like.
Needless to say, the other picture that has repeatedly been inserted instead File:Tarik ibn Ziyad - .jpg is even worse and even more useless. It's a cheap, artistically worthless scribble by an utterly untalented 19th-century book illustrator. It looks more like a Gaulish warrior from an Asterix comic than anything else. The idea that this piece of artistic crap could be of any information value for our readers is just breathtakingly silly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In response to the edit war over Tariq's ethnicity:
Source(s) calling him an Arab:
Source mentioning him as Persian:
Does anyone else have sources? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
. Taric (Tarik) has never been part of the Amazigh (Berber) anthroponymes and this name means absolutely nothing. In fact, he was Wisgothe prince heir, grandson of King Alaric, whose throne was usurped by an imposter. Taric was a refugee in Tamazgha (North Africa) where he trained units of agar-Berber mercenaries to reclaim his throne in Spain. There are so agar, Jews and Berbers also came to Spain in the year 711 it does not emphasize that no one had heard about neither Islam (the there was not at that time) or the Koran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adbouz ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Tariq ibn Ziyad. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
This article has claimed a death date of 720 ever since its inceptions in 2004, but this was never sourced. From the biography section, it emerges that little or nothing is securely known about his later years after the Iberian campaign, so one wonders how such a precise death year could possibly be known. I've added a "citation needed" tag, for the moment. When looking for sources, please watch out for the danger of circular sourcing. On Google books, I've so far found no source making this claim and published before 2004, the time it was first introduced here – but there are now multiple books from after that year that echo the claim, suggesting they all got it from here. What we do find in sources from before 2004 is an estimate of "c. 720", which may well be plausible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This must be sourced, otherwise it's original reseaerch. Doug Weller talk 06:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
There's been some dispute about the strength of the sources in the Origin section. The references there look incomplete. But, in case anyone made the same mistake I did, the full references are actually given in the Literature section. I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to refactor the references on this page to make a clear link between the shortened references and the full ones, such as using anchors. It's a little complicated since the existing footnotes have explanatory notes alongside page numbers. I'm not going to change anything without input from other editors since there's already some consistency in the existing reference style and I don't want to force the use of specific templates if other editors object. clpo13( talk) 16:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tariq ibn Ziyad. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
This medieval miniature has repeatedly been inserted on this page as a depiction of Tariq. I have repeatedly removed it because it had no proper source and there was no evidence where it's from and whether it really does mean to depict him. I now researched its provenance a bit further and I now can confirm that it does indeed represent Tariq.
This picture is from Ms. 7415 in the Spanish National Library in Madrid, fol. 27. This [4] article (Rosa María Rodríguez Porto (2006): María de Molina y la educación de Alfonso XI: Las semblanzas de reyes des Ms. 7415 de la Biblioteca Nacional. Quintana: Revista de Estudos do Departamento de Historia de Arte 5: 219~231), on p. 227, provides this source and identifies the contents as "Rodrigo y Tariq". This is from a medieval compendium of biographies of historical rulers. One of the features of this book is that it regularly presents pairs of pictures of two rulers on the same page, whose reigns are then described underneath. The manuscript is dated to c. 1312.
This website features a much higher resolution copy of our miniature, with the context of the surrounding page, including the opposite image depicting Roderic.
An online text of the work, though from a different manuscript and in a slightly different textual version, is available at e-spania. Scroll for the text saying "Rodrigo, el postrímero rey de los godos, fue perdido en la batalla de Sangonera"; this corresponds to the text just underneath our picture. The text speaks of the fight between Tariq and Roderic, so it is indeed obviously plausible that this picture is meant to represent Tariq. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
BTW, this said, I leave it open if we should use the picture and where in the article. As per my thoughts at WP:PORTRAIT, I'm not convinced it should be at the top of the article, as it's still an entirely imaginary and not very high quality depiction from an era and culture separated from Tariq's own time by more than half a millennium. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
has an article on Tangiers (q.v.) that gives Tariq's name as Ṭāriḳ b. Zīyād al-Laithī. Any idea where the nisbah comes from and if it's worth mentioning in the article? — LlywelynII 12:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to revert, once more, the low-quality edits edit-warred in by User:Ozan33Ankara [5]. Several issues:
Greetings, can someone confirm this part After Roderic came to power in Spain, Julian had, as was the custom, sent his daughter, Florinda la Cava, to the court of the Visigothic king for education. It is said that Roderic raped her, and that Julian was so incensed he resolved to have the Muslims bring down the Visigothic kingdom. Accordingly, he entered into a treaty with Ṭāriq (Mūsā having returned to Qayrawan) to secretly convoy the Muslim army across the Straits of Gibraltar, as he owned a number of merchant ships and had his own forts on the Spanish mainland
It seems dubious.-- Ozan33Ankara ( talk) 14:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello M.Bitton, can you please explain what you think the issue is with this contribution? The fact is not that the khutba was/wasn't the first example of Moroccan literature in Arabic. As written, the fact is that Abdellah Guennoun characterized it as such in a very influential and historically significant book. That's totally relevant. If you can rephrase it to indicate that Guennoun had a nationalist bent, that's great too. إيان ( talk) 15:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
He is commonly known by his nasheed يا عابد الحرمين (ya abedal haramain)-oh slave of the holy places — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn al alm ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Owmarh: 1) Here's the section about his origin that, for some reason, you keep ignoring. 2) who is the author of you source (Brahim El Harram) and what are his credentials? 3) more important though, the source doesn't mention where Tariq was born, so why are you misrepresenting it? 4) You've also been asked to refrain from edit warring, so rather than keep adding what clearly doesn't belong in the infobox, I suggest you take your time to answer the questions that have been asked. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:40:C780:2CC0:7804:5143:D10:3952 ( talk) 17:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Born in 670 AD, Tariq Ibn Ziyad, a Berber who grew up in a Muslim Arab environment, was a member of the Al-Sadaf tribe, originally an Amazigh clan in Morocco's High Atlas Mountains that later converted to Islam. He joined Musa Ibn Nusair's army and became one of his best leaders.
Born in 670 AD, Tariq Ibn Ziyad, a Berber who grew up in a Muslim Arab environment, was a member of the Al-Sadaf tribe, originally an Amazigh clan in Morocco's High Atlas Mountains that later converted to Islam. He joined Musa Ibn Nusair's army and became one of his best leaders. 2601:40:C780:2CC0:7804:5143:D10:3952 ( talk) 17:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Born in 670 AD, Tariq Ibn Ziyad (Moroccan), a Berber who grew up in a Muslim Arab environment, was a member of the Al-Sadaf tribe, originally an Amazigh 2601:40:C780:2CC0:FCB3:4098:71A2:6587 ( talk) 20:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@Hamamat32
1) don't throw expressions like "POV pushing" around. 2) when you remove content, you're supposed to explain why. 3) the same goes for content that you change. For instance: you changed currently inhabits the
Béni Saf region in
Algeria
to while others as hailing from the
Beni Saf region
even though the source doesn't support your change. 4) If the overwhelming majority of modern RS, including the tertiary one (used to establish DUE), describe Tarik as a Berber, then so shall we. 5) the
Dictionary of African Biography that you referred to in your edit summary describes him as a Berber (quote: One convert was Tariq ibn Ziyad, a Berber slave belonging to Musa, who rose to become his deputy governor. With an army of twelve thousand soldiers, most of them Berbers, Tariq launched the Muslim conquest of Spain in 711.).
M.Bitton (
talk)
23:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I Read the Source 5. It does not Claim, that Tariq Ibn Zyad would have been born in Tlemcen. I don't understand the Arabic source, but Someone Should check it. Till it is confirmed, that the arabic source is reliable and states that he was born in Tlemcen, it should get deleted. Mosti95 ( talk) 09:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
The English Source is not Claiming, what it saysreally? What does it say?
I don't understand the Arabic sourcethat's your problem. M.Bitton ( talk) 09:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
M.Bitton, I wonder why you're so quick to dismiss Mosti95's concern. It's true that much of what he wrote here is difficult to parse, but he made a quite tangible and testable argument in the beginning: he says he checked the Nicolle source and says it doesn't support the claim about the birth place. Do you have evidence to the contrary? The stuff that was originally added here [9] sounds prima facie dubious How could we possibly know anything about where he was born or where he lived "with his wife" at some stage of his career, if there are no written contemporary sources about his biography? And what kind of fact is "he is traditionally said to have been born in ..." supposed to be anyway? Are we reporting on anonymous oral traditions of historiography now? – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Dido789: please refrain from edit warring and seek the very consensus that you mentioned in your edit summary. Also, don't make false claims (especially when reverting someone). M.Bitton ( talk) 19:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
I added an image to this page in the past, and it was reverted with the edit reason "This image is fictitious." While I understand the concern about including only verifiable images, I noticed that other historical pages with images often include images that are believed to represent the subject, even if they are not verifiable photographs. i.e.
Adam,
Solomon, or
Baldwin V.
I would like to discuss the appropriateness of using such images on this page. Should this page be held to a different standard than other historical articles? Is there a way to clarify the image policy for historical figures? ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha ( 🧾 - 💬) 22:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello I don't know I didn't find my previous request, maybe there is a technical problem. I said that Ibn Khaldoun never said Tariq Ibn Ziyad was from Algeria. That's a lie, there are people who can actually trust this since they never read Ibn kahldoun. Be careful. 160.164.129.34 ( talk) 00:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)