Talk:Disputation of Tortosa
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of ויכוח טורטוסה from he.wikipedia. |
Added translation
[edit]I have added a translation from the Hebrew version at he:ויכוח טורטוסה. The text from the Jewish Encyclopedia still appears at the bottom since I didn't know what to do with it. Therefore, I put up a cleanup tag so people can decide whether to delete it or merge it somehow with the article. Also, if any of the translated language sounds awkward, please fix it. nadav 03:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've just removed it :) Computerjoe's talk 07:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
NPOV in second paragraph
[edit]Isn't it slightly point-of-view how in the second paragraph only Jews are mentioned with no Christians? Computerjoe's talk 22:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We could really use some thoughtful and well-informed comments here. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
NPOV
[edit]This article needs some Christian sources for balance.MickeyDonald (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do you believe there is bias or POV within the present sources? What content are you disputing? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- This article is cribbed from the Hebrew Wikipedia and uses only Jewish sources. It needs balance from the other side. Ironically, this article, as it stands, is the mirror opposite of what the article alleges which is: "The Jewish representatives were at a considerable disadvantage. The disputation was not a free discussion between two parties but took the form of a propaganda attack by the Christian side against Jews." In this Wiki article, the Christian viewpoints are at a considerable disadvantage (i.e non-existent). The article is not a free discussion between two parties, but it takes the form of a POV propaganda attack by the Jewish sources against the Christians. Do you see the analogy? Thanks.MickeyDonald (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Balance is not achieved by putting to partisan sources side-by-side. Balance is achieved by citing scholarly, non-partisan sources. I've added one and removed the POV tag. Qwertyus (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- This article is cribbed from the Hebrew Wikipedia and uses only Jewish sources. It needs balance from the other side. Ironically, this article, as it stands, is the mirror opposite of what the article alleges which is: "The Jewish representatives were at a considerable disadvantage. The disputation was not a free discussion between two parties but took the form of a propaganda attack by the Christian side against Jews." In this Wiki article, the Christian viewpoints are at a considerable disadvantage (i.e non-existent). The article is not a free discussion between two parties, but it takes the form of a POV propaganda attack by the Jewish sources against the Christians. Do you see the analogy? Thanks.MickeyDonald (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Start-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Start-Class Christianity articles
- Low-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- Start-Class Judaism articles
- Unknown-importance Judaism articles
- Start-Class Middle Ages articles
- Low-importance Middle Ages articles
- Start-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- Start-Class Spain articles
- Unknown-importance Spain articles
- All WikiProject Spain pages
- Pages translated from Hebrew Wikipedia