Talk:Battle of az-Zallaqah

Title
I have come across this article by acccident and I am surprised that there seems so little discussion around the points raised below. However, I must say that nowhere in English sources is this battle ever called by the name az-zallaqah, it is always called Sagrajas so I propose to transfer the text to the battle of that name. In addition the content definitely does not match the quality of fairness of other Wikipedia articles (oddly enough it resembles a number of other article about Moorish victories, though) and strikes me as mainly POV in style. Could the author please improve it, failing which I shall go ahead with changes in due course--AssegaiAli 11:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Plate of Falsehood!
This article is so, so messed up. With the numbers, the events, the details, everything! Where the hell would the moriveds get indian swords from?? and whats so special about them?! How is it that the moors numbered exactly half that of the Spaniards, and how is it that exactly 59,500 Spaniards were killed?!

It also says that Ibn Tashfin, gave Alfonso three choices, convert, jizya, or battle?!!!! Thats totally false, Alfonso was the attacker, he had the upper hand, Yusuf ibn Tashfin and Muhammad ibn Abbad didnt have a choice but to fight and hold their ground. The article also fails to mention Ibn Zirri, the ruler of the taifa of Granada, who was also an important part in the battle. "Alfonso lost his leg", thats just plain exxageration. Arabic sources say that he was badly wounded in his leg, but he nowhere do they say that he lost it.

This article is a fantasy tale completely, anyone with enough historical information, please re-write it.


 * Now that this article is translation of the week - could someone please respond to these points that were raised anonymously? I too was bemused by the term "Indian sword" - I'm just curious to know what they are.  Otherwise, I really don't have a feel for the factual basis of this event one way or the other - I would feel better if someone could respond to the above.   At a minimum - are there any references that can be cited?  ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  10:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory
In one part of the article the Castilian force is referred to as 60,000 strong and that is treated as a fact. In another part of the article it is said that the Castilians had only 14,000 men under arms and that contemporary sources exaggerate the size of the battle. The article is thus contradictory and badly in need of some cleanup and citation of references. David Newton 16:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)