Jump to content

Talk:Mansa Musa/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Musa's death

Many sources* indicate that Mansa Musa died in 1337. Can someone confirm the 1341 death? Or did he not die then, just that's when the throne became stable again?

*For instance, do a Google search for "Mansa Musa" 1337.LizardWizard 08:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I just removed the word 'fuck' from the death paragraph someone had put up... ````

Image request?

could someone make a window for that image of him?

Which image do you mean? --Dvyost 05:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

the one I put by the name


Sources for 12/20 years

I notice that this article keeps flipping back and forth between the claim that Egypt's economy took 12 years to recover, and that it took 20. Can we have a centralized discussion here about this? al-Umari seems to say, "at least 12," which could still mean either one. What sources do y'all have on this? --Dvyost 17:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I have never seen it say that it took 20 years to regain economic stability, everywher I have read, it says it took 12 years for Cairo, Egypt to gain control.
Also, Mansa Musa wasn't really the grandson of Sundiata, was he? I have read that he was the grandson of Sundiata's sister. This would mean that Sundiata is Mansa Musa's great-uncle....what do u think?
Truthxsaber 15:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds plausible to me, but what we really need to do is find some sources (WP:CITE). If you have any good ones, plug 'em in! --Dvyost 16:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that I am the source of the "20 years" statement (I made an edit to 1324, where I added this event & that number of years). I thought I had taken this from Ross E. Dunn, The Adventures of Ibn Batutta (Berkeley: U of California Press, 1986), but Dunn does not say exactly how long Manse Musa's free-spending ways warped the price of gold in Cairo; instead he writes: "The Egyptian chroniclers wrote about the event, and its disturbing short-term effects on the Cairene gold market well into the next century. in the history of mnedieval West Africa no single event has been more celebrated" (p.290). So if al-Umari says 12 years, then as an eye-witness he should be given primacy -- & cited as the source, of course. (Providing figures as if taken from thin air only encourages other people to actually use the same source.) -- llywrch 18:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mother claim

Just removed this sentence pending citation: "He went on hajj because he accidentally killed his mother by dropping a knife on her leg."

This seems possible but could easily be a legend; I think we need a little more citation (see WP:CITE) about whether historians believe this story, and where it comes from. Sound ok? --Dvyost 16:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

At this point, you're wikipedia's foremost expert on Mansa Musa, so, OK :P Siyavash 19:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
If I'm Wikipedia's foremost expert on Musa, then he's in quite a lot of trouble. =) Nah, I'm just falling back on good ol' WP:CITE--my code for "I don't know if this is correct or not and don't really have time to look it up myself." --Dvyost 06:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Fictional references

Every Famous leader in various ages of civilization have a "Fictional references" section, or something to that effect. I would have to completely disagree with the editor who chose to do away with that. Clearly, they haven't been using wikipedia all that much, or they're on some sanctimonious crusade to do away with the fictional references section of every famous world figure in history. Siyavash 22:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

While I originally had similar concerns, I must respectfully disagree with you statement. I inquired of the user who made those edits and his response here was well reasoned and allivated my concerns about his actions, which were in progress at that time. -JCarriker 22:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Well I'm going to have to in turn respectfully disagree with your change of heart. It's not even all that well reasoned, and all that it contains are a few buzzwords. The following articles contain text pertaining to fictional references of a historical figure. Some may or may not have anything to do with aforementioned game:

I think it's even more silly to be so hung up on a passing computer game reference to go on deleting crusade. Does this mean we're going to get rid of all "... in Popular Culture", " ... in media" and "... in fiction" sections for all the world leaders? Or are we merely getting rid of anything having to do with a computer game? I really don't buy that they're solely being removed because they are the only fictional reference on the list. We have to start somewhere.

How would such a list of fictional references for historical figures even take off if someone comes along and deletes everything? Anyway, I'm not going to edit anything more on these matters. I don't even play Civilization IV anymore, so calling me in particular a "fanboy" is sort of oddm so if everyone concurs that they no longer want these references in multiple historical figure articles and do not want any information about their fictional portrayals, I wont get involved.

Siyavash 01:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

First off, I had no change of heart, Sandstein's response simply verified that he was not going to stumble across, Hatshepsut (largely my work) and find that there was not only a reference to Civ IV, but also a pic, and an entire section and begin hacking away at it. In his response he made it clear that he was not going to damage the In popular culture section at Hatshepsut, which was my primary concern. I believe that similar sections are valuable in any article that seeks to pursue holistic coverage. As such I found him well reasoned as in his posyion was reasonable because he wasn't out to anhialate every reference to Civ IV outside of computer articles. If you disagree with his actions or are offended by something he said then you should take it to his talk page, it's not likely he'll see it here. -JCarriker 05:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Visited New World?

Some (I think?) believe Mansa Musa traveled to the Americas...is this just a modern Afrocentric myth or does it have any basis in reality?

There's very sparse evidence that his predecessor Abubakari II may have tried (see article), but nothing conclusive; never heard that Musa himself did, though. --Dvyost 07:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently he sailed 900 ships across http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council--services/lc/events/major-events-2008/blackhistory/african-did-you-know

His predecessor tried abdicated the throne of Mali to explore the "Green Sea of Darkness" (Atlantic Ocean) in hopes of opening up new trade areas. The mansa (Abubakari II) sent one expedition in around 1310 and left with another in 1311. He never returned. No one knows if he made it or not. But he (Abubakari II) did attempt it. Musa on the other hand never did. His biggest venture was the hajj.Scott Free (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Visit to Cairo

I've removed the exacting figures on how many slaves he had, how much gold he had and how long it took the economy to recover, and rounded it off to generic terms. If someone wants to quote an authoritative primary source for the figures that would be OK, although I think it's better for an encyclopedia not to get into a debate on numbers since probably no one really knows, and it's really a bit of trivia that's not that significant. The important thing is, he had a lot of gold which caught peoples attention. -- Stbalbach 11:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think the exact amount of gold would be great if this was known. I think people would find it very interesting to see just how rich this man was. However, I do see your point on why it shouldn't be there.

Fredtastic 01:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kennedy ClanlKennedy Clan According to a book entitled 'Into Africa' by Marq de Villiers & Sheila Hirtle, it was Mansa Musa's predecessor, Abu Bakari II, who made that trip. He was called the Voyager King because of it. Supposedly Mansa Musa confided this to the son of the sultan of Cairo while on his historic hajj to Mecca. It was published in 1340 by the encyclopaedist Al-Omari. His trip allegedly occured sometime around 1310-12. Sorry for any errors I might have made in posting this but it is my first time.``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennedy Clan (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

King before birth?

The first paragraph says he was born in 1300-1315, but also says he became king in 1312.

How could that be possible? 72.152.10.70 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where those birth years are coming from. Mandinka culture doesn't consider someone to be in the majority to get married (let alone become emperor of the wealthiest nation in the world) until about 20. Musa was regent of the Mali Empire in 1311 and became emperor in 1312. Logic dictates he could not have been born any later than 1292 (1295 at the latest!). Sundjata Keita is reputed to have been only 18 when he became Mali's first emperor, but that was an extraordinary circumstance. His son siezed the throne at about the same age (the records say Mansa Wali wasn't old enough to become emperor either).Scott Free (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Devaluing Gold

That isn't in the article, but I take a homeschool course called "Education 2020", and when Mansa Musa made a Mecca privelage, he gave out gold so much that it was temprorarily devalued.

Is this worth a mention?

--TurtleShroom! :) †Jesus Loves You and Died for you!† 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's true. He devalued gold in Egypt if not the middle east for about 12 years. I'd put it in.Scott Free (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Kankou Musa

I'd made a recent edit to the page concerning the actual pronunciation of Mansa Musa's name which is usually recognized as "Kankan Musa".. However, reading Hunwick and the Tarikh al-Sudan has brought to my attention that this is likely not the proper pronunciation. From his notes on chap 3 of the Tarikh, in his book "Timbuktu and the Songhay empire[]...", he cites Cissoko, writing:

"According to Cissoko (1969), this should be read "Kankou", which is a common Manding female name. Thus Kankou Musa would mean Musa whose mother was Kankou". TF.32-3 reads Kunku and confirms it is a woman's name".

Let me know or supersede me if you find anything to the contrary....Taharqa (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, my friend. In the Mali Empire, it was common for children of either gender to take the first name of their mother. A prime example is Sogolon Djata better known as Sundjata. His first name is from his mother and his last name is from his father. Scott Free (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename

This article is oddly named. I would suggest either moving it back to Mansa Musa or Musa I of Mali. Was there a reason that his title was lower cased and put in parenthesis? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

the word mansa is usueally lower case unless used as a title. That's why it is lower case. The parenthesis is used in other wiki titles when you have a very common name. There are other Musas. I'd leave it as is.Scott Free (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it is a title and only capitalized when refering to him as Mansa Musa or as Mansa of Mali. However, the other royals have articles named Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Elizabeth (queen) or Juan Carlos (king). Just the format is odd and not in line with other articles of the same nature. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the present name is odd and strongly support renaming the article to "Mansa Musa" – short and without diacritics. This is the usual name in English and satisfies the requirements of the MOS. Note that mansa means king. The Encyclopaedia of Islam also has "Mansa Mūsā" (Vol. 6 p.421). Levtzion in his "Ancient Ghana and Mali" used "Mansā Mūsā". I think the longer "Mansa Musa of Mali" is unnecessary and even slightly confusing as people may confuse the ancient Mali Empire with the present country. Aa77zz (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with procedures, should this be listed somewhere for more comments to get a larger consensus? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd be cool with renaming the article if the person or persons desiring such action promise to do the same for the other mansa of the Mali Empire. that's at least like 15 pages. I'm really only concerned with consistency.Scott Free (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I would have no problem attempting that feat, once there is a bit of consensus on the title. I would myself prefer all to fall in line with Mansa I of Mali simply because that is the preferred way to name all other royals. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Date of reign

User Jiopoop changed the date that Musa started his reign fron 1307 to 1312. I reverted this as Bell 1972 gives 1307 and cites Nehemia Levtzion, "The Thirteenth and Fourteenth-Century Kings of Mali," Journal of African History, IV (1963), 349 which indeed gives 1307. Levtzion cites Ibn-Khaldun. However, I'm now less sure as confusingly Levtzion in his Ancient Ghana and Mali (1973) page 66 gives 1312 and cites Pageard (J.S.A., 1961), 79. I'll try to check Ibn-Khaldun and Pageard. Aa77zz (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The dates of the kings of Mali are based on the writings of Ibn Khaldun (translation in Levtzion & Hopkins 1981, pages 322-342). Unfortunately the information provided by Ibn Khaldun is incomplete and at times contradictory. For the reign of Mansa Musa, Levtzion (1963) favours the dates 1312-1337. As discussed by Bell (1972 page 224-227) in arriving at theses dates Levtzion has had to arbitrary select from the conflicting information provided by Ibn Khaldun. Bell (1972, page 223) states " The only event during the entire reign of Mansa Musa which can be dated with certainty is his passage through Cairo on the way to the pilgrimage in 724 A.H. or 1324 A.D." (in my previous post ignore the Pageard reference – this was a footnote to a different chapter in the book) Aa77zz (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not taught in standard world history classes

A section in the article should discuss how this is left out of world history classes in grade school and high school. I find it very odd that this subject was not covered at all considering how powerful this Black King was. This should be added to the article.--ProofMaster (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Death date

Re the recent anon edit changing it to 1332, I gather no-one really knows, but the print sources used to construct the page presumably went for 1337. Our old friend the 1911 Britannica certainly seems to have no idea. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This "a.c." stuff

I'm up against 3RR, since this does appear to be a good-faith but confused edit. I've posted to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.176.206.180 asking what on earth they're thinking of, but no reply, of course. Can someone else look into it? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2014

source #22 is a bias source pushing a narrative, not academic nor properly sourced itself

in short no reliable evidence provided for the claim at all Albertkropp (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Levtzion appears to be one of the leading experts in this field. You would need to produce evidence - from other academics, not just your PoV - before accusing him of bias - Arjayay (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Arjayay: Source 22 (http://www.ruperthopkins.com/pdf/Kingdom_of_Mali.pdf) looks to me like it's written by Rupert Hopkins, not Levtzion, unless I'm confused. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Granger - my mistake - somehow I misread that as No 20 - my apologies.
Having now looked at 22, it has a "Classroom activities" section on the last page, so is clearly written for students, and is totally unsourced.
It appears to be being used as support for the statement
"His most notable legacy was the hajj, which not only caused an economic inflation in the Mediterranean region, but may have indirectly supplied financial support for the Italian renaissance."
Even ignoring its reliability, this is not what the cited article actually says, which is "Historians say that this pilgrimage caused the collapse of the gold market in places such as Egypt" and "Gold from this region is thought to have kick-started the Italian Renaissance".
In the circumstances, it appears that the whole of the "Legacy" section lacks reliable sources - are we happy for the whole section to be deleted? or is some of that section covered in other material?
Apologies again - Arjayay (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem – I did the same thing with source 21 yesterday.
Deleting the whole "Legacy" section sounds reasonable to me. Whatever you think is best. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 Done as original ESp request - apologies for the confusion - Arjayay (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wealthiest person in history?

I had added the following under the Legacy section: "According to a 2012 study by the site Celebrity Net Worth Mansa Musa was the wealthiest person in history adjusted for inflation. His net worth was valued at $400 billion."

However, after a bit of logic set in I removed it because the "study" uses an annual inflation rate of over 2,000%, which is nonsense. Their numbers simply don't stack up. So I've removed it until the issue gets resolved.

Here is some further discussion on another talk page [1] Coinmanj (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed it again, although I suspect it will be a hardy perennial. Musa was clearly not strapped for cash, but that Celebrity Net Worth article is pure nonsense. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


This is all fantasy, right? There was no currency in Sub Saharan Africa at that time. In other words, there was no system of money. There was no form of written language in Sub Saharan Africa at that time (Arabic in a few cases was used only for religious purposes). There were no physical structures other than huts made of sticks and twiggs. There also were no occupational titles. Africans were subsistence farmers . So, there is no accurately way to measure wealth. Wikipedia can easy piece all this together but instead allows this African fantasy to exist as credibly researched history. really shocking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16.98.2.151 (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

" There was no form of written language in Sub Saharan Africa at that time (Arabic in a few cases was used only for religious purposes). There were no physical structures other than huts made of sticks and twiggs." And Great Zimbabwe. And Timbuktu was as a major center of Islamic learning. And we'd have to accept the artifice of 'Sub-Saharan Africa', to divide it from the Sahara and the Nile Valley, which is the origin of most civilization. It is the Hollywood/Tarzan version of Africa, which basically mindmelds steel age and medieval West Africa/Sub-Saharan Africa empires with Papua New Guinea and it's stone age cultures. 2001:1C00:1E20:D900:C1C8:11FD:11F3:B6AB (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Did someone change the name of this article?

Why is this article not called Mansa Musa per Wikipedia Naming policy? WP:TITLE. Names are confusing enough stick to the Popular name. --Inayity (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Sovereigns "Musa I of Mali" is correct. I don't believe the article title has changed. Mansa Musa redirects here; while it's how he is often known hem-hem thanks partly to the Civilization videogames, it does tend to give the impression that his forename was "Mansa". Up to you, but I'd leave it be. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The title seems ridiculously contrived to me. If Victoria of the United Kingdom can be Queen Victoria, so can "Musa I of Mali" be Mansa Musa. I have never seen him referred to with an ordinal outside this article. —Sesel (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

Mansa Musa's legacy in the Wikipedia page comes off as revisionist history by an editor and false.

It says Mali as a global power but in the same paragraph it states Mali wasn't even the most powerful country in Africa.

'Rivaled by Egypt and Morocco'

Exactly, and then you have to take the Middle East into consideration, certain European countries, East Asia, and possibly even a few more civilizations.

It wasn't even close to being a global power and it talks about Europeans going there for education (Europeans didn't even visit Timbuktu documented until the 19th century) and never any documentation of Asians going there during Mali Empire too.

It's false, the source doesn't even have verification, and the only thing accurate is about the architecture part.

- Cau7ion (talk)

thanks your opinion, can you now wait for the talk page to decide if your suggestions are worthy of inclusion? this is the procedure.--Inayity (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


Wait for what?

In the same paragraph it states Mali wasn't even the strongest country in Africa yet you call it a global power?

Lol, really?

Documentation of Europeans or Asians going to Mali until after the Empire fell.

The first documentation of a European reaching Timbuktu wasn't even until 1826.

BLOCKED LINK

It doesn't mention European or Asian students in your source, at all.

Your source isn't even legit and needs verifiability and the editing is still false and contradicts itself.

I'm sorry, but it's quite clear some of this information needs to come out of the legacy and his legacy might just need to be redone as a whole with a proper source and information.

- Cau7ion (talk)

Wait for WP:NORUSH now Please stop changing the article to your version while a talk page discussion is in progress. If you are unable to do this then Wikipedia is the wrong place as we have rules which goven contributions. The minute you stop edit warring you will find people listen to your objects and give them space.--Inayity (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


Lol, the only talk page discussion is between me you, apparently you're the only editor who dissents with my opinion on his legacy.

Your source has been deemed as not legit by another editor too.

What else do we need to converse about here?

- Cau7ion (talk)

The edit history of the article shows You have been reverted not only by me, I came late to this scrap. I was the one that said the source is not R>S. Only because of the website it is on, we are trying to find the source of the PDF on that page. But the article it properly written. If you want you can make a request for comments. WP:RFC--Inayity (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Some indication you've read any of the sources for the article not available on the Web would be nice. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


I honestly have no idea what Pinkbeast is even saying and as for Inayity saying the article being it properly written, nah not really, I notice mistakes in grammar.

It's the epitome of Wikipedia:OR, WP:CHERRYPICKING, and WP:POV as it mentions false information, comes from a source needing verification, and biased editing in an attempt to make Mansa Musa's legacy seem greater than it really is.

The information contradicts itself in the legacy, is made up (contains statements that aren't even mentioned in the illegitimate source by the way) and is poorly written in my opinion.

If you dissent with my recent edit, elaborate why.

- Cau7ion (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you quite obviously have not read any of the print sources for the article. I have. Please do not make edits without proper knowledge of the sources. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I would be happy if he could use the indent on the talk page, but that might be too much. What Pinkbeast is saying if you did not get it the first time is try and get a grasp of the sources on Mansa Musa. If you see mistakes which are technical, that is different from "Well written". And this edit warring is not going to work. As i said when you do it, it does not make people listen better to your points (where they exist). --Inayity (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


what I'm saying is that you quite obviously have not ready any of the prince sources for the article

I would appreciate it if you could form a statement with semi-coherence next time so I could fully comprehend your post.

I have read the sources and the sources consist of one in the legacy that is the epitome of various things wrong with editing (view my preceded post) and it doesn't even mention global power (direct quotation from legacy) or students in that source.

Once again, the first sentence is anachronistic like I mentioned as the Mali Empire was in the Middle Ages -- not the 2nd Century and going into the Middle Ages, it was literally in the later Middle Ages, so that makes no sense.

The whole legacy is poorly written in its entirety (source wise, grammar, history, etc) it's all trash.

I'm not resulting to edit warring either @Inayity but simply pointing out things wrong with the legacy that are evident.

I am simply asking for an elaboration on how the legacy is currently correct but all you keep saying is basically is 'read the source' and I have, the legacy is false and I've already elaborated why.

- Cau7ion (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you use the : to indent the page? I have added a Fact tag on the section in question and other editors will know that it needs a source that says it was "the most powerful" except blah blah. I personally think that statement needs a specific ref to verify it.--Inayity (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
"quite obviously have not ready any of the prince sources" is not what I wrote. Anyone can look up the page to see what I did write (which is perfectly coherent), so I have no idea why you've resorted to lying about it. You manifestly also are edit warring. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


"is not what I wrote"

Lol, are you serious bruh?

It says it right there in your post, the only person who's lying here is you son, check your vision or something.

I honestly don't even know how that basura in the legacy is still up, especially that first sentence.

I'm not gonna continue to argue with you dudes who keep saying the same trite stuff and one can't even form a sentence with semi-coherence.

I'm out, go ahead and keep that garbage legacy that is more poor than modern day Mali, lmao.

- Cau7ion (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I wrote that you "quite obviously have not read any of the print sources". You claimed I wrote "quite obviously have not ready any of the prince sources", a statement which is not true. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Some mischievous person deleted the "Legacy" section, contrary to the consensus here. I have restored it.DanJazzy (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion just below this is that which justified removing it. This discussion with Cau7ion was before that. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Richest Man has a source this time

The richest man is backed up by a RS so I am not sure about last time, but considering the source given I am not sure the same policy applies. I started a RS check--Inayity (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we agree, on this talk page, that the Celebrity Net Worth article is junk. It seems to me that if Phil Space writes an article on a slow day in a newspaper that just reproduces the claim, it's equally junk.
Now I recognise this is not really the Wikipedia process. We should just see what sources say, etc. But honestly, can they be said to be reliable sources in this case, when the claim has apparently simply been reproduced uncritically even though a brief perusal of the original source shows it's rubbish?
None of the newspapers just comes out and says it. It's always "according to the Celebrity Net Worth website", or similar. I think I'd agree that reliable sources say that Celebrity Net Worth says that Musa was the richest person ever... but I'm not sure they really can be said to support the claim itself. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
My issue is very simple, when 3 huge newspapers focus on Musa (something rare for ancient African history) what they say has some notability which should be included in some shape or form esp when we consider the paucity of information compared to say Alexander or Cleopatra. It cannot be ignored. esp when African history is next to non-existent in mainstream circles. Even if they are not historians. a simple according to XXX --which warns the reader. --Inayity (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
My issue is also simple: what they say is nonsense. It doesn't stand up to any examination whatsoever. We would do this article a disservice by putting nonsense into it, whether or not it is "according to...". Pinkbeast (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The coverage is far too widespread and "notable" historian Henry Louis Gates does not share that it is nonsense. There is no escaping RS and such extensive coverage to ignore it in an article of as the very papers say "You probably never heard of him". --Inayity (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you include the reference from Henry Louis Gates, Jr.? That should be sufficient for WP:RS. Omo Obatalá (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Henry Louis Gates finds the same source notable and uses it. --Inayity (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a bit questionable; however, I think it should be mentioned, but not as entirely factual. Omo Obatalá (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I have added a note to deal with what we all agree is slightly questionable. However such popular mention and usage by a scholar in history does warrent inclusion. --Inayity (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I suppose there's no escaping this silly claim now (although I notice that it is about the one thing in the article that Gates feels the need to have an "according to" hedge on, and no wonder). Pinkbeast (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course we should include Reliable sources. Musa I was an honorable and rich Mansa. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were a European emperor. Kashta (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No-one is disputing that he was extremely wealthy, just the "richest man in history" (although oddly neither his predecessor nor successor made the top 25...). I can't see any European emperors in that list, but I can see William the Conqueror - and if that nonsense turned up on his page I suspect we would be having exactly this discussion. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
William the Conqueror has so many books and newspaper articles they can afford to put that type of threshold on him. But poor Mansa, as the article even says "you probably never heard of him". But my thing is we re-edited the lead to warn the reader about the nature of the source. I personally do not find it to be the most "serious" source, but that leve. But they used these sources on Alexanders page to say how influential he was. --Inayity (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
"You probably never heard of him, unless you play Civ" might be more accurate; but, more seriously, I think the threshold I would like to apply is nothing to do with what other material exists, but simply that the "richest man" claim is nonsense. If it were the only source about Musa it would be nonsense; if his every move was documented as closely as Obama's, it would still be nonsense.
T I don't propose to remove it. I'm just talking about it. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Show me a serious, academic, scholarly source which makes such claim, otherwise this stupidity stays out. Hint: there is no such source because the claim is absurd, which is why it comes out of a trashy tabloid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Which tabloid Marek? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Daily Mail. Celebritynetworth or whatever is about as bad.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Vounteer Marek, this is where we discuss, do not go against a discussion by pushing your views on the talk page for something people are discussing. It violates Wikipedia editing policy. Also spend time reading the thread, it is clear from your remarks you have not done so.--Inayity (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
These are not "my" views. It's Wikipedia policy. The relevant policy is WP:RS. Read it. What you are trying to add to the article is idiotic nonsense that's coming out of non-reliable sources.
And yes, I have read the discussion. In fact, I even read the WP:RSN discussion you started where you were bluntly told this was not a reliable source. So why are you fighting to push this crap back in? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
To quote from the discussion: "I'm inclined to agree that this probably not reliable. Reliability is not all-encompassing; a newspaper that has a great news section might print horoscopes or crazy op-eds, or as User:Pinkbeast mentioned, include something on a "slow newsday" with less rigorous editorial standards than normal. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)". And: "When taking into account the original source "Celebrity net worth", I think the answer is no. This is a fluff piece for fun, not a serious claim. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)". So... also see WP:CONSENSUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Did you read Wikipedia Pillars on reverting what we have agreed. Or did you miss this comment:to be clear, I think what you have written in the lead is a reasonable compromise. Do U understand that is what we call OUTCOME of a long discussion. So adults have discussed something, and in a mature fashion come to an acceptable agreement. Correct? I repeat, Henry Louis Gates-- A notable scholarly has used the source in the same way we have used it. I am not discussing Horoscopes or crazy op-ed, we are discussing Henry Louis Gates. --Inayity (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
And It is very strange how people can quote Wikipedia policies but have they actually read them? WP:TALKDONTREVERT or you just drop it in hoping I dont know what it says about building and negotiating? Something we have ALREADY done before you got here. A compromise has been reached. In any event, you must leave what is agreed, and discuss here if you have further issues.--Inayity (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
First, the actual name of that policy is WP:CONSENSUS. What is also a policy is WP:RS. Which you're violating.
Second, you might want to follow your own advice. If you think that claim should be in there, work on convincing others, don't just revert. The burden of proof is on you.
Third, a "compromise" between complete nonsense and absence of nonsense is not really a compromise. It's still nonsense.
Fourth, I've actually edited this page back in 2012 and have had it on my watch list since then. Over the years other editors have done the job of removing this stupidity.
Fifth, you were *already* told at the reliable sources noticeboard that the sources were not reliable for this claim. Yet you continue to try and cram this junk into the article. I also noticed that as soon as people disagreed with you there you started badgering them in order to get the outcome you want. You didn't. How about you start observing WP:CONSENSUS?
Sixth, it's pretty clear that Pinkbeast also disagrees with the inclusion of this stuff. "the Celebrity Net Worth article is junk". "My issue is also simple: what they say is nonsense." Etc. I don't want to speak for them but it seems to me like they just gave in to your badgering.
Seventh, see WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Like I said earlier, show me a reliable, scholarly, serious, academic, source, which makes this claim. Not tabloid crap. We can keep discussing this while you look for such a source, but in the meantime and until you find such a source, this has no place in the article.
If you want to, feel free to start an RFC on the subject, in order to get more input. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you self-reverted your latest revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
U know you are special b/c you talk about a agreement, but there is this talk page. are you denying the discussion on THIS TALK PAGE about a compromise. Or you just going with the r/s? Henry Louis Gates is Notable enough and that reference cannot be challenged under anything you have just said. Who are you to dictate the final edit of a page you just flew in on? Above you are multiply editors who agree with a compromise. Revert yourself. the cheek! Spend time reading the full discussion by editors who edit THIS PAGE! --Inayity (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Notability is not the same thing as reliability. The fact that Gates mentioned celebritynetworth in passing does not make it reliable. Like I said, I've been on this page about as long as you've been on Wikipedia. And stop making stuff up. Multiple editors are telling you the source is unreliable. Myself, pinkbeast and Collect here, and a few others at WP:RSN. Stop edit warring against consensus. Start a RfC if you must but per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:UNDUE and WP:RS unless you get consensus for inclusion this crap stays out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I doubt the above. Can you please read the above talk page and tell me what was the outcome? Your refuse to deal with that one simple question. You talk about Consensus or Votes? I see only two people edit warring. The current statement and the current ref to GATES, a historian produces a statement which Gates is willing to back up. So what you are doing is investigating H L Gates bases for the statement of "according to some criteria" (which Pinkbeast said he was happy with).The other editor Omo Obatalá also accepted it. So please explain to me how are you reading Consensus? U know what mr experienced editor, do you realize there was no edit war until you came here? You do realize we were discussing it, I never put it. I hedged the claim and we all were satisfied. --Inayity (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Doubt whatever you want. I have read this talk page, as well as the discussion at WP:RSN and I am familiar with the edit history of this article. There is no CONSENSUS for inclusion of this junk. In fact, there's a pretty clear CONSENSUS for exclusion, as Pinkbeast's clarification below makes clear. The fact that you're trying to manipulate their words to your own ends just shows that you're engaging in tendentious and disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Why dont you give it a rest? You are disruptive because while everyone else decided to discuss, you were the only one engaged in reverting. Only you. You can quote policy all day long, it does not escape a violation of failure to join this discussion. And please do not try to use pinkbeast clarifications and violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to accuse me. Pretty clear, yet it was only you edit warring. And still you have never answer the question about a compromise. Was one reached? Yes or no. Pinkbeast has historically reverted that content (see top of this page), I never objected. I did not put the material there, I hedged it, and added the ref by Gates. U read this talk page, and the only people discussing this is me and Pinkbeast?--Inayity (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid my use of "compromise" may have been misunderstood. What I meant was if there was no way to avoid having that rubbish in the article, it would be best to hedge it about. That does not mean I wanted it in the article to begin with, because it is nonsense.

I think it is still worth considering that Gates carefully only quotes the "richest man" claim as "according to celebritynetworth". However, the mention of Musa's "gold-plated legend" (emphasis mine) has no such hedge on it. "We know about Mansa Musa through a weaving of Arabic sources, inherited oral history and, perhaps most important, the 17th-century historian from Timbuktu, Ibn al-Mukhtar" does not suggest to me that we have a complete collection of his bank statements. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we might usefully cite Gates in the lead (better yet, Musa's entry in the OUP Dictionary of African Biography, but I don't have a copy) with some more reasonable statement about Musa's exceptional wealth. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I fully understood your issues. how we handled it was the best way Wikipedia works--talk and find a path, as opposed to engage in an edit war like the other chap. I think your suggestion is valid. And I would not even just depend on Gates, I am sure we can find others also to add strength to the statement.--Inayity (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
It's fine to say something about his riches, though this source Gates is essentially a blog post, so I'd rather have something else. Scholarly sources should be easy enough to find. But this celebritynetworth crap about "wealthiest man in history" is not going to be in this article. This is an encyclopedia not a trashy gossip site or a stupid sensationalist tabloid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
THe Grio is a blog post, what is that criteria? --Inayity (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Celebritynetworth is not a reliable source. Other sources just quote it making them tertiary sources. The claim is absurd. There hasn't been a single other editor either here or at WP:RSN where the issue was raised who has agreed with you that this is info which should or could be included. You are refusing to listen and playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and make it to the University Library to consult the DAB. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

regarding the available materials and contemporary researchs about Musa and Mali Empire has potention to be FA rank, if its correctly written. Too bad the structure and POV regarding legacy and analysis still need to be reworked

besides im always fascinated about 2 aspect of Mali empire:

1 the theory of Malian voyage to america and colonize there long before Colombus, which theorize by Dr Clyde Ahmed Winter & Ivan van Sertima

2. the debatable effect of Mali Gold sudden influx which not only driven inflation in cairo, but also the indirect catalyst of Italian RenaissanceAhendra (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I really dont know why is hard for some people to accept that he is the Richest Man of all time. Is it because he is black. Please and please let no one be removing history. Mansa is the Richest ever. Let that stay and let our kids know the true history. GUARDIANSofWESTERNAFRICA (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The argument is about the reliability of sources. It has nothing to do with the fact he is black. When you make a statement on Wikipedia, especially a sweeping claim like "richest man in history", you need to have at least one reliable source to back it up. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
No, it's because it's nonsense. We're not off editing pages of white dudes in the same silly list (like William the Conqueror) to say they were the such-and-such richest person in history. How on earth do you sensibly compare the wealth of someone who lived 700 years ago with, say, Bill Gates? You can't.
The article does say what can be verified - Mansa was enormously wealthy, his wealth was widely noted, "This is the only time recorded in history that one man directly controlled the price of gold in the Mediterranean". No-one's trying to hide anything. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Current image of Musa is false

The current image delineating Mansa Musa is totally false. He was not depicted as having a hue that dark in the Catalans Atlas as you can see him (on the bottom) and I suggest the current image be removed or replaced. CretinousSavant (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this. Per this the text reads "The crowned black man holding a golden disk is identified as Musse Melly, "lord of the negroes of Guinea" - in fact, Mansa Musa, of fabulous wealth." It seems curious that that would be written to identify a figure apparently a sort of pale beige, and indeed quite curious that the ruler of a West African empire in the 14th century would _be_ a sort of pale beige.
The overall colour appearance of the image of the Catalans Atlas linked is curious, with the left-hand page clearly different to the right (particularly the brown thingy north of Corsica and Sardinia which changes abruptly midway). In particular it is illustrative to compare the compass rose with the closeup on Wikipedia itself, and to view the pages as depicted here. In particular the North on the compass rose is blue on Wikipedia's closeup and the Henry David page (and generally they resemble each other), but red on the Wikipedia atlas image, which more generally seems different.
Clearly something odd is going on but I'm not quite sure what. Here is black Musa again. And here. Most seem to have black Musa, but who's copying who?
Absent anyone going and taking a look at the original in Paris, I'm inclined to feel that the error is probably in the linked image of the atlas. Frankly, our interlocutor - despite this being their first edit ever - seems curiously familiar with their portmanteau name. Pinkbeast (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
It is often difficult to know whether an image is from the actual atlas in the BNF or from a reproduction. The wiki page on commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Catalan_Atlas_reproduction states "Reproduction of the Catalan Atlas of the 19th century that can not be considered facsimile of the original. Often it is confused with the authentic one." Aa77zz (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
An image of the original map is available from the BNF (Gallica) http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55002481n/f7.item The image in the lead of this article is clearly from a facsimile - compare the depiction of the water (River Niger) at the bottom. Aa77zz (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, that puts that one to bed. Thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

WP:LEAD The current lead does not summarize the topic, for example one of the most notable pieces of information-- the Hajj, is missing. Yet specifics about his territory are included. --169.0.4.74 (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to suggest a new wording? Not being facetious; give it a bash. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Mansa

I have discussed the issues with "mansa" == "king of kings" at Talk:Mansa (title); please look in there. It seems more useful to discuss it there rather than here. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

More and older sources available?

Some of the sources in this article seem to be modern European scholars referring to slightly older European scholars who refer to somewhat older European scholars without saying where the information originates from. The article would become more reliable, if someone could find references to contemporary accounts or archaeological evidence.

The particular point I tried to get a confirmation of was the alleged currency crisis he would have caused with his spending of gold. I even found one source (Lady Lugard's A Tropical Dependency, 1905, page 124), which says that he did not spend much in Mecca or Medina.

It would be impossible to get absolute certainty about this, but more reliable sources would be welcome. --Mlewan (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wealthiest in history (redux)

This portion of the article is debatable. There seems to be some issues with regard to Musa's wealth, and more importantly, the sources acting as documentation. Arguments below state that 'Celebrity Net Worth' (.com) is the sole point of reference, which is untrue. CNW is just the calculator that was used in adjusting is historical wealth to account for inflation. Forbes Magazine (a reputable outlet) mentions this.72.174.65.182 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • NB: This says "Arguments below" because it was added at the top of the page. I moved it into chronological order.
Every other source that printed this piece of fluff got it from Celebrity Net Worth. The cites you put on your edit did. Two acknowledge it explicitly; the other one is in a spinoff site from Forbes and (besides quoting the CNW figure again) is an incoherent mess, not remotely a reliable source.
The original article was rubbish. It's surely evident that no-one has any specific idea of how much gold Musa had (beyond that it was a lot) and the rates of inflation over the early period will be essentially arbitary; so we multiply a number we made up by a factor we made up and treat the result as meaningful. It won't wash.
That "This is the only time recorded in history that one man directly controlled the price of gold in the Mediterranean" is a much better statement. It not only bears some resemblance to reality but it's a much more definite statement. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Your obsession to 'disprove' a stated factoid that is widely accepted by international press comes off as crass. The 'fluff' you've taken entitlement to downgrading is a point of reference, not opinion, and delineated in poor taste (although I realize that WP allows this). Regardless, try this documentary by Jessica Smith, courtesy of TED-Ed, a reputable source.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3YJMaL55TM
72.174.65.182 (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
What this video says is "amassed a fortune that possibly made him one of the wealthiest people in history". That's a far cry from definitely the richest, and it's a very far cry from quoting a precise (and ridiculous) inflation-adjusted figure.
The rest of your edit seems to be incoherent rhetoric. I have no idea whatsoever what "delineated in poor taste" is supposed to mean, especially since your sentence so describes the fluff. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Pinkbeast, that TED video itself referenced another documentary from National Geographic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr5Jr5WoIEA), which claims, therein, that Musa was "the richest person of all-time" (even in comparison with Bill Gates). Stop pretending like you are unable to comprehend what the language means. In this case, doing so makes you look bigoted.
Since you are driven to shred evidence in this article, I'll it leave to you to correct said editorial.72.174.65.182 (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Given the last video you produced didn't say what you claimed it did, I'm disinclined to waste 15 minutes sitting through another one. But what I've found in the first few minutes is someone (not Nat Geo itself) saying "A survey" put Musa as the richest, with Bill Gates coming 12th. In other words that is the same fluff piece in Celebrity Net Worth recycled again. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Davidson 2015

Besides that the expression "Often referred to as the wealthiest person in history, there’s really no way to put an accurate number on his wealth" doesn't appear in the cite as such, I submit we should steer clear of "Often referred to as the wealthiest person in history" since what it turns out to lead to is the same Celebrity Net Worth fluff piece that's such a nuisance here. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

In which case we should remove the "Davidson" quote entirely. There's no need to cherry pick quotes to support a biased POV.--DanJazzy (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should, but we certainly should not include a quote, as you keep doing, that doesn't actually appear in the thing being quoted. Not including it isn't "cherry-picking", it's being accurate.
I don't know what you're going on about with the "biased POV". It's true I don't want this article to reflect that fluff piece in Celebrity Net Worth, because it's drivel (and - see [2] - it's in all probability recycled from Wikipedia. I don't see what's "biased" about the article saying Musa was colossally rich but his wealth can't really be quantified - that's the plain and simple truth. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
You referenced an article from CNN clearly listing Mansa Musa as the wealthiest person in history. Have you looked at your own source? If so, why avoid that part? This is where the biasness comes in. This is clearly an attempt to push a non neutral point of view by cherry picking quotes to fit an agenda. --DanJazzy (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't say that. It says that he is "often referred to as" the wealthiest person in history (with a link back to the junk CNW article). If I write that, say, Oliver Cromwell is "often referred to as" a genocidal maniac, it doesn't mean that _I_ think Cromwell was a genocidal maniac. It means what it says.
The same applies to this source - especially when it comes out and says that there is no way to put a number on his wealth. The author cannot possibly think that someone whose wealth cannot be known was the richest person in history.
Additionally, the quote you keep re-inserting simply does not appear in the article. You can't form a sentence with two disjoint phrases from the article and claim it's a quote. It's not, just as you didn't say above that "Mansa Musa is clearly a cherry" - all the words appear in what you wrote in that order, but it's still not an accurate quote.
This accusation of bias is absurd. Why would I want to conceal the fact that Musa was enormously wealthy? (If I do, I'm doing a very bad job of it, since I inserted the expression "He is known to have been enormously wealthy; reported as being inconceivably rich by contemporaries" into the article.)
Ping Coinmanj, Inayity, Volunteer Marek, Ashorocetus, in the hope some of you would like to chip in. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'am going to reword this phrase in the article, word for word, as it appears in your own source. Do not delete it or I'll be forced to report this as disruptive editing. You cannot cherry pick what parts of a source can or cannot be used in a Wiki article. --DanJazzy (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, yes, one can pick which parts of a source to quote. That is perfectly normal and acceptable, as one can see from the way that any article that quotes part of a source doesn't quote all of it.
Your threat to report me is fatuous. If anyone's been editing disruptively, it's the person repeatedly putting a non-existent quote into an article because they can't seem to comprehend that quotes from a source should actually be accurate.
You cannot, however - as you have done - directly quote rather than paraphrasing a source without marking it as a direct quote. That will have to be edited once again and I will do so.
You've also made a familiar error where you've taken a source that says "Professor So-and-so says X" and interpreted it as "X is gospel truth", not "at least some academics think X". Pinkbeast (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
So basically what you're saying is that the source you quoted is not reliable. Further you make the outrageous assertion that you have the authority to determine what is or is not gospel truth. I'm afraid that goes against Wikipedia rules. It's called original research. Wikipedia is not a platform to advance your biased personal agenda--DanJazzy (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I've undone your editing of my talk page comment. Please do not edit other users' talk page comments. I'm not saying any of these things, of course; I suggest you read what I actually wrote, not what you suppose it might mean.
It is not sensible to add the sentence "As one of the wealthiest human beings in history, Musa's wealth was so immense that his contemporaries struggled to describe it" immediately before "reported as being inconceivably rich by contemporaries". These say essentially the same thing. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I've not edited any of your comments. Please own up to your mistake. This is an outrageous accusation and unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. I agree with your second point. Your editing makes sense. Thanks --DanJazzy (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you have edited one of my comments. Here you insert the words "Wikipedia is" into a talk page comment of mine. It's not an outrageous accusation, because it's true. Try reading the page history to find your own mistakes before blustering. Pinkbeast (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy of this article.

I decided to evaluate an article about Mansa Musa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_I_of_Mali

Everything in this article is related to the topic, and I found it to be very interesting because it doesn't go on any rabbit trails. Nothing in this article seems to be biased, although I believe this isn't by choice. This is because his life isn't that well documented and there isn;t much to say about his personality. The viewpoints seem underrepresented, but only because the life of Mansa Musa is still a somewhat mystery. What I thought was strange, however, is how accurate the time of his reign was displayed on the article, since everything else seems to be up in the air. One question I would ask is if we have more paintings or descriptions of what he looked like.

The time of his reign is prepended "c." - circa. It is not displayed to great precision. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

k — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.235.206.81 (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

massive additions reverted

As a result of polity (WP:BRD inter alia), this section is intended to elicit comments supporting or not supporting that material. Collect (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The reverted additions were vandalism. They were simply an existing paragraph pasted over 30 times. Dr. K. 15:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I know - but wanted to adhere to "strict Wikipedianism" here, lest the IP turn weird. :) Collect (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I see. However, vandalism being an exemption from 3RR, the IP could get a "B" for block rather than for "B"RD. :) Dr. K. 19:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Lack of proper quotations and grammatical errors

The secondary paragraph below the header, needs some serious editing. I would edit it, but i don't want to change any original text. So ideally, the one who has the original text to "it grows in our land", please quote it. Monk Bunny (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

{re|Monk Bunny}} they won't, they are an IP editor who hasn't edited this before and added something from a self-published book. But i've removed it, thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Third paragraph says "quantiy" but when you click into the editor, the text says "quantify" - don't know what to do with the discrepancy, don't usually edit wikipedia, thought I'd flag for someone who can fix. thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C5:8003:B2C0:5C9F:6BF2:CBC0:4955 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks OK. O3000 (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Reference #24

The article that is referenced quotes the Wikipedia page as a source of its information. So you have a Wikipedia article that cites a source, while the source is cites the same section of the article. What kind of circular logic is that? Not to mention the article is a commentary on current monetary policy and not at all academic in any way. It should definitely be removed.

Someone noticed it was unsourced and added that. I've fixed the issue with an academic source. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Commemoration of Mansa Musa

Could we add an section for a list of statues and commemorations of Mansa Musa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.64.103.27 (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would recommend a title like "Legacy". However, it is very important that any information added is verifiable and supported by reliable sources. If it meets these requirements, his continuing legacy is definitely noteworthy. If you have questions please let me or another user know. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mansa_Musa/Archive_1&oldid=1176813395"