This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Andalusia may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Discussion on Joseph ibn Naghrela
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marissa1998.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Can someone justify what this article has to do with the " religion of Islam"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on.
-- Avi 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
<reset>Yes I did see the quote. I didn't find any mention of "Islam" in the quote. Many things occur in Muslim countries: Muslim countries posses the tallest buildings in the world: Petronas Twin Towers in Malaysia, soon to be overtaken by Burj Dubai in United Arab Emirates - both Muslim nations. Does this imply a correlation between Islam and civil engineering? Or how about the fact that Muslim countries export the most petroleum? Does this imply a correlation between Islam and energy resources? I am still waiting for a reliable source that directly says that the event is both an example of Islamic teaching and antisemitism. Bless sins ( talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on.
See it now? How forgetful we are. Yahel Guhan 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yahel Guhan has quoted the following:
Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on. They have violated our covenant with them, so how can you be held guilty against the violators?
Could users kindly inform us whether the above connects Islam with antisemitism? I am unable to see wither word in it. (The "breach of faith", in my opinion refers to the "violated our covenant" (similar to breaking one's promise) that appears in the next stanza.) Also, users should consider the source of the quote. It is a medieval man, Abu Ishaq, who doesn't appear to have any credentials in Islamic studies nor studies on antisemitism. I will post something soon regarding this on WP:RSN. Bless sins ( talk) 05:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Fletcher, Moorish Spain, p.96-97: "In 1066 the Granadan faqih Abu Ishaq mobilised Muslim opinion against the Jewish community there, and against Joseph in particular, on the grounds that Jews were ruling over Muslims contrary to Islamic teaching. He disseminated his views by means of an able but nasty anti-Semitic poem, addressed to Badis, inciting the inhabitants of Granada to turn on the Jews [...] Abu Ishaq was all too successful in his aim. A pogrom occurred in the course of which Joseph and large numbers of the Granadan Jews were put to the sword." He goes on to say: "This was an isolated outbreak. By and large the eleventh century was a time of peace and prosperity for Spanish Jewry." (Things got appreciably worse with the Almoravids and Almohads later.) rudra ( talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the negative-racist speaker is a bearing-of-false-witness addict, so man-childed, that it embarrasses itself.... [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maredecanis ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I also removed, "Racial massacres" since I highly doubt the motivation was race. Had the Jews converted to Islam, but remaining the same "race", they probably wouldn't have been killed. Bless sins 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
BS, you said respond on talk. To what? What is your problem with this inclusion that should be obvious. Yahel Guhan 20:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Anti-semitism are rare in Islamic World before the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, They were respected as one of the people of the book. This massacre is not religious. It's racial. In Ialamic Spain, Both the jews and the arabs society are more dynamic then the Berber whcih form the majority of the muslim in Spain. most of the Arabs and Jews are capable merchants and artists and soon their wealth and achievement overshadowed the majority berber. There are several racial conflict between the Berber and the Arabs, but none were recorded properly in history, as the history Jews was. We see the same thing happen today in many country against the Minority group who were perceived by the majority as a threat to them. Just look at the discrimination suffered by the ethnic Chinese in several non-Chinese majority country in East Asia.
161.142.139.54 (
talk) 04:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
References
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)
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 ????
Regards Cowmadness ( talk) 02:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
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.
Regards Cowmadness ( talk) 16:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
--Particularly instructive in this respect is an ancient anti-Semitic poem of Abu Ishaq, written in Granada in 1066. This poem, which is said to be instrumental in provoking the anti-Jewish outbreak of that year, contains these specific lines: Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on. They have violated our covenant with them, so how can you be held guilty against the violators? How can they have any pact when we are obscure and they are prominent? Now we are humble, beside them, as if we were wrong and they were right![5] -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Fitzgerald ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Joseph ibn Naghrela for some problems. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
While this article has large chunks of information about Joseph ibn Naghrela, he has his own article. Battle of the Bulge, Warsaw Uprising, Masada and Wounded Knee Massacre all have information about persons. All may be of interest biographically. None are biographies. JimCubb ( talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears as though the aforementioned merger has happened. The article, while informative, is uneven & confusing & does not fit with Wikipedia's normal entry style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piantanida31 ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article claims:
"When the King, Badis and his heir Bulluggin, were poisoned and died in 1073, it was loudly rumored that Joseph had done it himself."
Something is definitely wrong here, as the article also claims Joseph died in 1066. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2841:6000:5D9F:E620:A8C0:FC5E ( talk) 18:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Andalusia may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Discussion on Joseph ibn Naghrela
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marissa1998.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Can someone justify what this article has to do with the " religion of Islam"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins ( talk • contribs) 05:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on.
-- Avi 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
<reset>Yes I did see the quote. I didn't find any mention of "Islam" in the quote. Many things occur in Muslim countries: Muslim countries posses the tallest buildings in the world: Petronas Twin Towers in Malaysia, soon to be overtaken by Burj Dubai in United Arab Emirates - both Muslim nations. Does this imply a correlation between Islam and civil engineering? Or how about the fact that Muslim countries export the most petroleum? Does this imply a correlation between Islam and energy resources? I am still waiting for a reliable source that directly says that the event is both an example of Islamic teaching and antisemitism. Bless sins ( talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on.
See it now? How forgetful we are. Yahel Guhan 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yahel Guhan has quoted the following:
Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on. They have violated our covenant with them, so how can you be held guilty against the violators?
Could users kindly inform us whether the above connects Islam with antisemitism? I am unable to see wither word in it. (The "breach of faith", in my opinion refers to the "violated our covenant" (similar to breaking one's promise) that appears in the next stanza.) Also, users should consider the source of the quote. It is a medieval man, Abu Ishaq, who doesn't appear to have any credentials in Islamic studies nor studies on antisemitism. I will post something soon regarding this on WP:RSN. Bless sins ( talk) 05:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Fletcher, Moorish Spain, p.96-97: "In 1066 the Granadan faqih Abu Ishaq mobilised Muslim opinion against the Jewish community there, and against Joseph in particular, on the grounds that Jews were ruling over Muslims contrary to Islamic teaching. He disseminated his views by means of an able but nasty anti-Semitic poem, addressed to Badis, inciting the inhabitants of Granada to turn on the Jews [...] Abu Ishaq was all too successful in his aim. A pogrom occurred in the course of which Joseph and large numbers of the Granadan Jews were put to the sword." He goes on to say: "This was an isolated outbreak. By and large the eleventh century was a time of peace and prosperity for Spanish Jewry." (Things got appreciably worse with the Almoravids and Almohads later.) rudra ( talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the negative-racist speaker is a bearing-of-false-witness addict, so man-childed, that it embarrasses itself.... [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maredecanis ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I also removed, "Racial massacres" since I highly doubt the motivation was race. Had the Jews converted to Islam, but remaining the same "race", they probably wouldn't have been killed. Bless sins 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
BS, you said respond on talk. To what? What is your problem with this inclusion that should be obvious. Yahel Guhan 20:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Anti-semitism are rare in Islamic World before the fall of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, They were respected as one of the people of the book. This massacre is not religious. It's racial. In Ialamic Spain, Both the jews and the arabs society are more dynamic then the Berber whcih form the majority of the muslim in Spain. most of the Arabs and Jews are capable merchants and artists and soon their wealth and achievement overshadowed the majority berber. There are several racial conflict between the Berber and the Arabs, but none were recorded properly in history, as the history Jews was. We see the same thing happen today in many country against the Minority group who were perceived by the majority as a threat to them. Just look at the discrimination suffered by the ethnic Chinese in several non-Chinese majority country in East Asia.
161.142.139.54 (
talk) 04:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
References
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)
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 ????
Regards Cowmadness ( talk) 02:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
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.
Regards Cowmadness ( talk) 16:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
--Particularly instructive in this respect is an ancient anti-Semitic poem of Abu Ishaq, written in Granada in 1066. This poem, which is said to be instrumental in provoking the anti-Jewish outbreak of that year, contains these specific lines: Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them, the breach of faith would be to let them carry on. They have violated our covenant with them, so how can you be held guilty against the violators? How can they have any pact when we are obscure and they are prominent? Now we are humble, beside them, as if we were wrong and they were right![5] -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Fitzgerald ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Joseph ibn Naghrela for some problems. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
While this article has large chunks of information about Joseph ibn Naghrela, he has his own article. Battle of the Bulge, Warsaw Uprising, Masada and Wounded Knee Massacre all have information about persons. All may be of interest biographically. None are biographies. JimCubb ( talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears as though the aforementioned merger has happened. The article, while informative, is uneven & confusing & does not fit with Wikipedia's normal entry style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piantanida31 ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article claims:
"When the King, Badis and his heir Bulluggin, were poisoned and died in 1073, it was loudly rumored that Joseph had done it himself."
Something is definitely wrong here, as the article also claims Joseph died in 1066. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2841:6000:5D9F:E620:A8C0:FC5E ( talk) 18:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)