Talk:1066 Granada massacre

message: The Granada Massacre is the second event listed at the above list article (formerly entitled "List of massacres").  The list has recently undergone a change of name and inclusion criteria to make it less of a POV edit war magnet (this was the result mandated by a recent AfD nomination).  The new version of the list requires multiple sources that substantiate that the word "massacre" is part of an accepted name for the event - as evidenced by reliable sources.  Unfortunately the entry on the Granada Massacre does not include sources that do that (the one's provided do indicate that it was a massacre, but do not substanitate it as a name).  Ideally we would like reliable sources that say something along the lines of "...known as the Granada Massacre".
I am sure that the regular editors to this page will know which sources will meet with the list's new requirements.  Please help us out. Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I'll try to see what I can find. Having worked on the above mentioned page, I've got to say you guys seem to have gotten quite picky (which is probably a good thing given the problems previously before).Bless sins (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very picky (it was either this or deletion)... thanks for helping us out. Blueboar (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance needed at [[List of events named massacre]] 

message: Well from looking at the references i can see the lack of objective historical sources in order to account for this event .
and definitely not enough to make such a false preposterous  accusation of genocide.
If we would look at the first source , The jewish encyclopedia which is probably the most biased source of information
you could ever bother with , at least when it comes to the displaying jews as victims ...etc
we can safely drop this one as unreliable.
secondly , comes the reprehensible Mr Lewis , and i'm calling him reprehensible because his studies are nothing but lies and propagandas.
Read what Edward W. Said has written about him !
besides what would you expect from a person whom the greatest insensible moron of all times Mr.George W. Bush used to call upon for Advice??
At Last , you have the insignificant Walter Zeev Laqueur who besides his weak neglible status is of jewish ancestry,
making him another case of the famous zionist false accusation situation in the pathetic fashion of the boy who cried muslim.
I Challange everybody to present me with objective verified sources to prove this alleged massacre to be a positive event.
otherwise this article must scheduled for deletion.
NOTE : Did somebody besides me notice the extremely low results count on google for the keywods "1066 Granada massacre" ???
Try to google "armenian genocide" for example and you get a million results
DOes that Ring any Bells ????
RegardsCowmadness (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You sound pretty biased yourself.  Someone being Jewish isn't adequate, unbiased reason to discount a source, and at the very least demonstrates  your poor lack of judgment. Results counts on Google aren't relevant regarding whether or not to include something in Wikipedia. And there are almost 9000 hits, in any case, which is hardly insignificant.QuizzicalBee (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK , since you're referring to what you call "my lack of judgment" , please let me give you an example to display who is lacking judgement.
Let's say , you're from tribe A and I'm from Tribe B , now you accuse me of slapping you in the face.
Question would be: Does your account of me slapping you suffice for considering your claim to be true?
The Logical Answer : NO it Does not !
You See it's that simple , so if a jewish source claims that muslims had wiped out a jewish community in granada in the year xxxx , then this 
can Not be considered historically valid by itself.
RegardsCowmadness (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

text: For what it is worth, making edits such as this one implies a distinct POV, and User:Cowmadness's statements need be be seen in light thereof. -- Avi (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Evidence for this Event is Dubious an Questionable! 

message: :Bernard Lewis is notorious for his attempts to soft-pedal the history of endemic massacres and mob violence in Islamic history. Bernard Lewis is also one of the foremost figures among historians that denies the 1915 Armenian Genocide, and Wikipedia is singularly guilty of over-sourcing his quotes.
:The 1066 Granada massacre was the first massacre/expulsion of Jews in medieval Spain, and Bernard Lewis' attempts to downplay it or protray it as a one-off for the Islamic world are despicable. Fortunately, we have the writings of Moses Maimonides as a testimony to the truth. Wikipedia is severely biased, but it cannot hide the facts of history for posterity.
:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your view is noted and I would argue, supportable. So if that is the case, what do you actually attempt to do about it? This article is about the Granada massacre, not about what one can view as Lewis' quasi-apologetics. Quote another source on the subject if you have on readily available.ShamWow (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-reliance on Bernard Lewis 

message: I would suggest to omit the below mentioned part of the article because the Lewis is himself of jewish ancestory and thus cannot be considered as an independent source. --Jim Fitzgerald (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider omitting part of the article for biased and non-independent source used. 

message: Two closely linked articles, not particularly lengthy, with a large overlap between them, could easily be merged. PatGallacher (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked them out, and think that they could be merged under 1066 Granada Massacre. I don't think the other article is strong enough to stand independently. It's kind of vague. It would be better if put under this heading, as it will contextualize him better. QuizzicalBee (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

text: has been merged--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: This article is about an incident.  It is not a biography.  If Joseph ibn Naghrela were to be merged into this article, the name of the article would still refer to an incident in history not a biography.    JimCubb (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Biog Banner Removed 

message: Casualty figures in relation to massacres are often a particularly dificult issue, I could point to several articles on Wikipedia where this has been a problem, but some of the higher figures claimed would be treated with caution by some people.  However I note that figures claimed in 1906 have not been repeated by more recent sources, and that Joseph's wife and son did manage to escape the massacre. PatGallacher (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty figures 

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: I am of the opinion that crucified in the lead, is the most informative and neutral term, it's a fact, in the same way that killed is a purely neutral term - however crucified is more informative.
Murdered? are we dealing with a legal definition?
Assassinated? surely that has political connotations, and without sources using that term, smacks of OR.
NPOV + informative = crucified.
What do others think? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph ibn Naghrela was (killed/assassinated/murdered/crucified/other) ? 

message: This should be obvious, but the unsourced edits repeatedly added by an anonymous user shouldn't be there. They also violate NPOV and have strong anti-semetic overtones. agtx 22:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent addition of a bare reference to an encyclopedia as a source is also unpersuasive. It is very, very unlikely that the cited source says what is claimed. agtx 22:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced edits