Talk:Doctrina Jacobi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Citing

CltFn, you need to cite better. "Doctrina Jacobi V.16, 209. [p. 57]" is not very meaningful. It's not a full citation and doesn't mention translator or anything. Please fix that pronto... because it's not the same translation as used in Hagarism (and it also quotes more). You also need to put page numbers next to your Crone references. Books need page numbers referenced. gren グレン 16:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I also don't see "Judeo-Arab" as being used. You'd also have to clarify what that means. Jewish "ethnically" as we now see it or an Arab adherent of Judaism? I am going to remove that until you give me a credible source that uses such a phrase.

I also would not say "presumed by most to be Muhammad" because 1) you don't cite anything near "most" and 2) it's implied that it is the prophet of Islamic tradition... but that is not necessarily Muhammad. I think I portrayed it in line with how Crone presented the source... but it gets across the same point. You also need to cite where you make the jump that Jews and Arabs were fighting the Byzantines... I don't see that in Crone (point out the page number if you want to add it)... What she calls exceptional is that the prophet is portrayed as alive during Conquest of Palestine. Later in the book she makes the argument for a Jewish-Arab alliance... but she doesn't mention that about the Doctrine Jacobi (once again, if you have the page that says that, tell me) But, the fact that the prophet was an Arab who preached Jewish messianism does not make it a Jewish Arab alliance... gren グレン 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, It talks about "Judeo-Arab intimacy" but it doesn't mention a joint invasion. If you want to re-add it just give me the page numbers you're talking about. Also, I tried looking for those two quotes... I couldn't find.... at the bottom of page 7 I found something _very similar_ to the second quote but it wasn't the same. I'm going to remove them if you don't give page numbers in due time... because, that's pretty important. But, I really haven't changed your article very much so I don't think this will bother you too much. gren グレン 17:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)