Talk:Emirate of Granada
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Template:Friendly search suggestions
Emir or Sultan?
I see that in subsequent pages mentioning the rulers of the Emirate of Granada individually, they always get the title Sultan. Shouldn't their title be Emir instead? Takeaway (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
April Fool
The date given here for the surrender is 1492 January 2 but a legend among Muslims is that the day was April 1 and that it is the origin of April Fools' Day. See this story which is repeated on several websites. Sgroupace (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The date of 2 January is well-documented in the contemporary chronicles. Maybe a misunderstanding, because in the Treaty of Granada the Catholic Monarchs assured freedom of belief to anybody, but in the Alhambra Decree dated 31 March 1492, they ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Spain. So, if anybody was fooled in 1492, it were not the Muslims, but the Jews. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
File:Flag of Morocco 1147 1269.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Flag of Morocco 1147 1269.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
Castilian language of Granada?
I wonder how it is possible that Castilian (i.e., Spanish) were spoken in a territory not conquested yet, when in the Crown of Castile itself most of their territory did not speak Castilian (but Galician-Portuguese, Basque, Asturo-Leonese, and still many mozarabic survival dialects), not to say "Ladino", which was purely and simply Castilian (at that time there was no difference at all, historic Ladino is born from old Castilian when communities of castilian-speakers were exiled from Castile). As far as I know, it is not possible to state if southern mozarabic (i.e., another romance language developed in muslim Spain, now extinct, and developed in a way completely independent from those northern romances, which are the only ones spoken now) still was the language of most of the population (Arabic being official in any case), or Arabic had taken over. Anyway, Castilian took over those languages *since* 1492, not before.83.165.19.63 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Merge with Nasrid dynasty
It was pointed out in an edit summary that I did not start any discussion of the rationale for my proposed merge. Well, it seemed obvious to me that there was some redundant content, and the distinctions drawn seem unclear to me. I trust that the following two sections, one copied from each article, make the rationale for merging more obvious. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Looks to me like like the two should be merged. --Bye for now (PTT) 20:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
List of Sultans of Granada
Years | Ruler | Reign |
---|---|---|
1238–1272 | Muhammed I ibn Nasr | |
1273–1302 | Muhammed II al-Faqih | |
1302–1309 | Muhammed III | |
1309–1314 | Nasr | |
1314–1325 | Ismail I | |
1325–1333 | Muhammed IV | |
1333–1354 | Yusuf I | |
1354–1359 | Muhammed V | |
1359–1360 | Ismail II | |
1360–1362 | Muhammed VI | |
1362–1391 | Muhammed V | Second |
1391–1392 | Yusuf II | |
1392–1408 | Muhammed VII | |
1408–1417 | Yusuf III | |
1417–1419 | Muhammed VIII | |
1419–1427 | Muhammed IX | |
1427–1429 | Muhammed VIII | Second |
1430–1431 | Muhammed IX | Second |
1432-1432 | Yusuf IV | |
1432–1445 | Muhammed IX | Third |
1445–1446 | Yusuf V | |
1446–1448 | Muhammed X | |
1448–1453 | Muhammed IX | Fourth |
1453–1454 | Muhammed XI | |
1454–1461 | Sa'd | |
1462-1463 | Yusuf V | Second |
1464–1482 | Ali Abu l-Hasan | |
1482–1483 | Muhammed XII Abu 'abd Allah | |
1483–1485 | Ali Abu l-Hasan | Second |
1485–1486 | Muhammed XIII Abū `Abd Allāh | |
1486–1492 | Muhammed XII Abu 'abd Allah | Second |
List of Nasrid Sultans of Granada
- Muhammed I ibn Nasr (1238–1272)
- Muhammed II al-Faqih (1273–1302)
- Muhammed III (1302–1309)
- Nasr (1309–1314)
- Ismail I (1314–1325)
- Muhammed IV (1325–1333)
- Yusuf I (1333–1354)
- Muhammed V (1354–1359, 1362–1391)
- Ismail II (1359–1360)
- Muhammed VI (1360–1362)
- Yusuf II (1391–1392)
- Muhammed VII (1392–1408)
- Yusuf III (1408–1417)
- Muhammed VIII (1417–1419, 1427–1429)
- Muhammed IX (1419–1427, 1430–1431, 1432–1445, 1448–1453)
- Yusuf IV (1432)
- Yusuf V (1445–1446, 1462)
- Muhammed X (1446–1448)
- Muhammed XI (1453–1454)
- Said (1454–1464)
- Abu l-Hasan Ali, known as Muley Hacén (1464–1482, 1483–1485)
- Abu 'abd Allah Muhammed XII, known as Boabdil (1482–1483, 1486–1492)
- Abū `Abd Allāh Muhammed XIII, known as El Zagal (1485–1486)
Misleading Motto Translation
The motto as it stands at the moment is:"Wa lā ghāliba illā-llāh", translated as "(There is no conqueror but God)". This wrongfully implies 'conquest' in the context, when in loosely means "There is no victor but God" and literally means "There is no defeater but God". It shows both humility for not claiming the victories (any: civil or military), while showing the philosophical wisdom and faith in believing that nothing is in one's own hands. I recommend the that the motto translation be changed from "conqueror" to either "victor" or "defeater", I would personally lean towards "victor" since it includes the lingual context and references it accordingly. 8227 19:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Andalusian Arabic an official language?
I added the dubious template to this statement. Does anyone have any evidence for it? First of all, the concept of "official language" to my knowledge does not antedate the establishment of Castilian as "Spanish", which (if I recall correctly) was in the early sixteenth century.
I cannot think of an example of an Arabic-speaking polity of any period in which the official language was anything but Classical (Koranic) Arabic, if the concept has any validity at all. deisenbe (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Emirate of Granada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427093923/http://www.liceus.com/cgi-bin/gba/4010.asp to http://www.liceus.com/cgi-bin/gba/4010.asp
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927010027/http://www.islamyal-andalus.org/control/noticia.php?id=1142 to http://www.islamyal-andalus.org/control/noticia.php?id=1142
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113170329/http://web.genealogie.free.fr/Les_dynasties/Les_dynasties_musulmanes/Espagne.htm to http://web.genealogie.free.fr/Les_dynasties/Les_dynasties_musulmanes/Espagne.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I would also note that the first external link "Granada - The last refuge of Muslims in Spain" points to a document produced by the so-called "Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilization" (FSTC), an organization clearly devoted to pro-Arab and pro-Muslim propaganda. The propagandistic tone is blatantly evident in the referenced document. In my opinion such propaganda material should not be endorsed or distributed by an encyclopedia adherent to NPOV principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.234.145.187 (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Nasrid dynystay
I will add Nasrid dynystay tribe becuase its not exist which is The Nasrid dynasty was descended from the Arab Banu Khazraj tribe from Sa'd ibn Ubadah, the chief of the tribe and one of the companions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The nasab of Yusuf (nicknamed "al-Ahmar", meaning "the Red") The Nasrids were of Azd origin. Isamaxzs (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is not an article about the Nasrid dynasty, it is an article about the Emirate of Granada. The name of a remote ancestor of the people who would come to rule this political entity really isn't a noteworthy aspect of this Emirate's history, particularly when we have an article on the dynasty itself that people can go to if they care. Likewise, Yusuf has his own page so we don't need to go into details on his nickname here - it might be different were he 'the Great' or 'the Timid' that would convey information about how the period of his rule of the emirate was viewed, but 'the Red' has no bearing on his rule and tells us nothing useful about the Emirate of Grenada, our goal to describe here. I don't see anything here that belongs in this article. Agricolae (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I know, but the name of the ruling dynasty must be added to this emirate Isamaxzs (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- The name of the ruling dynasty already appears in the article 17 times. Agricolae (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes but i want to add the Lineage Isamaxzs (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- If by lineage you mean a genealogical chart that shows how the Emirs were related to each other, I guess I don't have a problem with that if you have a good source for it. If by lineage you mean their ancestry before the Emirate of Grenada became into existence, then this isn't the place for it, because this is about the Emirate, we already have a page about the dynasty that ruled this emirate elsewhere. This is not unique treatment. In our article about the Kingdom of Leon, we don't discuss the kings' ancestor a half-dozen generations before the kingdom came into existence, Pedro of Cantabria, and his claimed Visigothic progenitors. We start talking with the ruling family at the time of the kingdom's creation, with Alfonso the Great and his sons, and we leave the dynastic origins to a separate article on the Astur-Leonese dynasty. In our article about the Kingdom of Portugal, we don't discuss Robert of Haspengouw, the earliest definitive male-line ancestor of the first Portuguese king, nor his claimed descent from the Merovingians - that is in our article about the Capetians. Likewise, for the Kingdom of Great Britain, we don't discuss early (supposed) progenitors Fergus Mor mac Ercc and Cerdic. They too get discussed at more appropriate venues. Agricolae (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I second Agricolae's position. The Nasrids' far distant lineage is no great importance for this article. Applodion (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
But the important also to mention here the lineage and the founding, because the page is not complete and does not mention that Isamaxzs (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is begging the question. The page is complete (at least in this respect) without the information, just as with the other kingdom pages I listed above. What you need to answer is why this page should be different than the Kingdom pages I listed that also lack this kind of information, why the information is so much more relevant to this page as to the others that it justifies treating it differently here. Agricolae (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Other pages like what? Isamaxzs (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)