Talk:Granada

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rihikar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

untitled

I've changed [[Sierra Nevada]] to [[Sierra Nevada (Spain)|Sierra Nevada]], taking a cue from the Geography section of the Spain article. nknight 15:06 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

Hi...I hope this comment is made correctly. I like a lot of the information in the article, but I feel like it focuses too much on the history and is short on basic geographic data (like what are the major industries of Granada? What is the economic profile? There should be more details on current city government.) Please update this article to better fit WikiPedia guidelines. Re42scott (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Re42Scott

untitled 2

I think this article should be split into Grenada, the city, and Kingdom of Grenada, the Moorish state. What do you all think?--24.147.128.141 23:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

untitled 3

I'm an A-Level History student starting to study 'The Golden Age of Spain', part of the course revolves around Isabella I's conquests in the Emirate of Granada. It would be nice if this article was split, at least, into the Kingdom of Granada and modern Granada. I'm mentioning this here because I don't have enough background knowledge of Spain to do it myself.

Nasrid/Granada

the following exchange began at Wetman's Talkpage:

Hi Wetman... I see you've moved Nasrid into Granada. Well, there was a certainly a better list of Nasrid rulers in the city page than the dynasty page, and both were decidedly stubby, so it certainly made sense as a move. But in the long run, I think we need separate articles on the two... The city page needs to grow quite a lot, and the Nasrids are relevant to quite a bit more than the city. At least, that's what I think (though I'm not going to do anything about it, for lack of time, just now); I just wondered if you had principled reasons for putting the two together, beyond the current thinness of both? seglea 00:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

uhuh, I missed the comment above, which gives some background. Long term there probably needs to be a page on Granada (kingdom), which Nasrid might well redirect to. seglea

...Or, since the Sultanate of Granada segued without a change of dynasty into the Kingdom of Granada, eventually a complete History of Granada might be broken out from Granada, leaving a capsule outline in its place. The historical city was not separate from its supporting hinterland in the way that New York City can be discussed separately from New York State. As a modern city with relics of its past, Granada is beginning to be described in this article; as a historical territory, its size, history, culture etc. all belong at History until that subsection breaks off naturally because it's just too big (ca 38kb?) Otherwise we'd be trying to discuss the History of Attica separate from Athens etc etc. Modern suburbanites, conected by highways and television, don't fully understand what a city was historically. Does everyone see what I mean? Any harm?--Wetman 00:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly no harm for now in my view. But if we look at where the links come from, I think that there will probably be separable clusters that are really about the Sultanate/Kingdom, and clusters that are really about the modern city, and eventually these will need to be separate pages. (For example, I did some work on the Nasrid page because I was writing pages about places in the Alpujarras and needed links to it). The history of the Sultanate/Kingdom sits slightly uneasily within a page about the modern city, just because it was a wider entity. And within the history cluster, I suspect that the links to the Nasrid era may be a separate cluster from those to history since the reconquista. I'm not proposing any action for now, just trying to get a sense of where we might be trying to end up. seglea 18:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, for anyone trying to work on pages on this region, the Andalucian Statistical Institute has some very useful pages on each municipality - see links on pages for, e.g. La Taha - though you need to read Spanish to get more than the basic numbers out of them. seglea

I think, when a History of Granada is written, there should be a capsule of it at this article, with a Main article... heading. And that the History of Granada is not like the History of Paris, the growth and planning of a city, but more like the History of Athens. No more than that. Over and out. --Wetman 22:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that the population of the urban area of Granada is near 500.000 or even more.

Islam

Does anyone know the population of Muslims in Granada today? I know that this area was the most thoroughly converted to Islam, but I don't know the current number of Muslims. Can anyone help? Stallions2010 20:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but the modern number must be pretty low. The former Jewish and Muslim comminities were destroyed /expelled by the efforts of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Spanish Inquisition, and Tomás de Torquemada. See e.g. the Alhambra Decree relating to the Jews. Any modern-day Muslim community must be made up of Morroccan and other North African immigrants. --Valentinian 13:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that in 1056 there had been a slaughter in Granada of about 10,000 Jews by Christians. If true, this would be a matter worthy of inclusion here, no doubt.

The following sentence should be changed: 'Freed from conflicts with the Muslims, a united Spain advanced to first rank among the nations of Europe, and embarked onto its greatest phase of expansion around the globe leading to the discovery of the Americas by Isabella's prodigy Christopher Columbus and followed by what was to become the Spanish Empire, one of the largest empires of the world for the coming centuries.' The sentence gives a non-NPV slant to the history, picturing the defeat of Muslim Spain as the birth of a golden age. 'freed' and 'advanced to first rank' are the giveaways, as well as the somewhat positive spin on Spanish colonialism, also using the funny term 'discovered' for the Americas. Perhaps an interesting contrast could be made with the views of native poet Federico Garcia Lorca, who associated the death of Moorish Spain with a great loss of culture and insight.--Coolazice 07:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary populations of Muslims in Granada are growing. Most are immigrants from North Africa, but there is also a growing group of Spanish converts to Islam. Granada, Córdoba, and Madrid have the highest populations of converts, though I don't know any population figures. The first new mosque in Granada since 1492 opened a few years ago, to some controversy.--AKH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.44.42 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a relevant video by the BBC explaing the question, it could be reflected in the article. Neftchi (talk) 14:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Muslims converted or expelled?

Like the above section states, most Muslims were executed or expelled. Thus, IMO it is factually incorrect to say that most Muslims were "converted" as I think this sanitize what, the historical perspective of the "need" to expel Muslims from Christian Spain, was a vicious genocide. Simply put, Moors did not remain in Spain to contribute to post-unified Spain, either in culture, language, or genetically. Eboracum 05:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actualy, you are quite wrong. Muslims had a very significant influence in the culture, language and genetic makeup of the peninsula. There are hundreds of loanwords from arabic in spanish and portuguese, and genetic studies prove that a large proportion (about 30%) of y-chromossome and mitochondrial DNA in Spain and Portugal are very similar to those of North Africa, and unlike those of the rest of Europe. As for cultural similarities they are more subjective, but in my opinion very much existent. 84.90.18.136 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Eboracum is correct when talking about the mass forced conversions or expultions. However, it is incorrect to simply put "Moors did not remain in Spain to contribute to post-unified Spain" as he simply lack knowledge about Moriscos who remained in Spain after the decree of Philip II in 1567. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 17:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There weren't mass executions. Most of the Granadine Muslims converted voluntarily to Christianity in 1492 in order to retain a slighly better position under the Castilian administration. The ones who remained Muslim were later forced to convert or abandone the country in 1502 under Cardinal Cisneros orders. Finally, the descendants of the conversos (moriscos) were expelled in 1609. So if any, you can talk about cultural genocide (most likely religious intolerance) but not "proper" genocide. Check Hugh Thomas' The Spanish Empire or Joseph Pérez History of Spain for further information.--Menah the Great 13:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Furtive suppression of information has marked a string of recent edits. See my edit to judge the cleanup I've done. A closer watch needs to be kept on this article. --Wetman 02:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Granada

This article needs more work, it doesn't look good. I found and corrected many errors, especially capital letters and lower case letters. I hope it's a good start to make Granada look better. -- ICE77 84.223.76.86 13:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected some historical inaccuracies contained in the section on "Granada after 1492." This section needs further development, of course, as Granadino history doesn't end in the sixteenth century. At some point, somebody needs to put in information about Mariana Pineda, Federico García Lorca, etc. Future editors: please be careful using the langugage of "Moor" and "Moorish" as these words have very specific and sometimes offensive meanings.--AKH 71.135.44.42 00:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Gırnata

In Arabic & in Turkish...Böri (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

1066 massacre of Jews

From the article: ". . .nothing in the historical record shows that the rulers supported the massacre in any way." I wonder, can 4,000 people be killed in any city without the (at least implicit) approval of the authorities? They are not at all responsible? Doesn't sound right does it? I daresay more research and a rewrite is needed here, and less excusing of crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutugno (talk • contribs) 03:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

those 31 percent

I am surprised to read that the population of Grenada that came from South America (where most of them) did not hold Spanish Citizenship. I am aware that Spain does not really follow the principle of Ius Soli. I thought Spain would be liberal about the other principle. South Americans would be given a passport (almost) as soon as they would enter Spain.....I may just have got it wrong. --83.108.28.194 (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Early History subsection of History section

This paragraph does not appear to match the source used to reference it:

The region surrounding Granada has been populated by Iberians from at least the 8th century B.C.

No mention of Iberians and the source says from 5500 B.C

The region has furthermore experienced Phoenician, Greek, Punic, Roman and Visigothic influences.

No mention of Punic in this source and it only says there was Phoenician, Greek involvement on the coast (Almeria, Adra, Malaga etc).

The Iberians called the wide region Ilturir.

Quite possibly, but this source doesn't seem to say so

On the site of present day Granada there seems to have existed a Roman settlement, but no definitive proof has been found.

The source says that Granada became a Roman municipailty - even minted its own coins

Some 20 miles south of the modern city, the Iberians built the settlement of Elibyrge in the 5th century BC which later became the Roman city of Illiberis'

The source only says that Elibyrge was used as the name for what is now Granada by the 7th century B.C. No "20 miles south" location is given, not the 5th century BC and Iberians aren't mentioned. It says lliberri rather than Illiberis.

Hence, it should say:

The region surrounding Granada has been populated since 5500 B.C. and experienced Roman and Visigothic influences. Elibyrge was used as the name for what is now Granada by the 7th century B.C. and, by the 1st century A,D., it had become a Roman municipalilty known as lliberri.

--Bye for now (PTT) 19:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The second paragraph appears to be a combination of speculation, WP:EDITORIALIZING, WP:OR, WP:WEASEL and posibly even some WP:CHERRY-PICKING of resources. I cannot see how this paragraph improves the article at all. --Bye for now (PTT) 21:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

It is proposed that Timeline of Granada be merged into the article Granada. As it stands, Timeline of Granada doesn't add anything to WP that isn't (or couldn't be) covered within an existing article. --Bye for now (PTT) 13:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Anything I consider useful has been transferred to this article from the "Timeline of Granada" so that a redirect to this article can now be implemented. --Bye for now (PTT) 13:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The merge has now been carried out --Bye for now (PTT) 13:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The timeline article has been restored, per WP:CON etiquette guidelines. -- M2545 (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The merge/redirect is reinstated. Perhaps entering into a dialogue as to why this is wrong would be better than simply reverting --Bye for now (PTT) 15:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Bye for now: Please revert your recently reinstated redirect of Timeline of Granada. For guidelines see WP:BRD. Thank you! -- M2545 (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see HERE. Thanks, --Bye for now (PTT) 16:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. The Timeline of Granada article was created on 5 November 2014. Granada is an old city, with a very long history, and worthy of its own timeline article in Wikipedia. Lots of other city histories have similar representation in Wikipedia. The Granada timeline article as of 11 November 2014 at 9:28 was still at the stub stage, and not given a chance to develop before it was "merged." -- M2545 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it might have been better to use a sandbox first rather than create an article with gaps in coverage. It's probably fair enough to create a stub when little is known or available about a subject, but the coverage from RS on Granada is huge. Sometimes time and abilities can be better used in improving existing articles rather than creating duplicate/overlapping new ones. Just a thought. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 11:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

We are clearly on opposing sides of the Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia debate. -- M2545 (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of that comment when the subject is about merging here (ie: not taking an extreme view of either deletionism and inclusionism - see mergists). --Bye for now (PTT) 13:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of the timeline content was deleted, not merged (see revision comparison), a mere 6 days after the timeline article began. It would be reasonable to allow the timeline article to develop before assessing its value. -- M2545 (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

When I merged content into the Granada article I ignored content that was already in the Granada article anyway. Anything that didn't already exist in the Granada article, that I believed to be adequately sourced and relevant, was also merged. To have merged anything that I didn't believe was adequately sourced and relevant would have been wrong because, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If you believe I missed something then please feel free to FIX IT. Cheers, --Bye for now (PTT) 14:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Early History edits

I’m reverting the last two anonymous edits to the Early History section. The first adds unsourced material to a para implying it came from the same source and using unusual terms (what is IV B.C.? 4 B.C.?). The second is just absurd (Catalan ruins?). --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 06:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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/20110402185530/http://www.granadatur.com/en/city-guide/monuments/parks-gardens to http://www.granadatur.com/en/city-guide/monuments/parks-gardens/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141115060126/http://granada.org/v2010.nsf/xxtod/ciudadeshermanas to http://www.granada.org/v2010.nsf/xxtod/ciudadeshermanas

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) 02:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Bull Fighting

There should be a section of bull fighting, noting Granada is one one few Spanish cities that still allow the event.

Koopnasty (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Early History section again...

The early history section contains the following: "The Zirid Taifa of Granada was a Jewish state in all but name" This to me sounds extremely fictitious, at minimum it's a person's misreading or misinterpretation of the block-quote that follows it. Also concerning the following block-quote itself I frankly think there needs to be a description taken from a more authoratative source for the topic at hand. 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:30C1:E065:B80C:96CF (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Much-belated response, but I've removed the most questionable part of this statement, while adding more general info on this period. That the Taifa state was de facto run by a Jewish administrator is not in question (plenty of sources about this), but the characterization of "Jewish state in all but name" is a characterization from just one author which could be questioned. The new wording, I think, is more neutral and straightforwardly descriptive. R Prazeres (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Revising some monuments sections

In the interest of addressing the verifiability issues flagged for the lower sections, I've replaced the largely unsourced section on the Alhambra in "Heritage and monuments" with an edited version of the lead section of the Alhambra main article, which has been revised recently and cites reliable scholarly sources, plus a few other minor things from that article to fill in some details. I plan to do something similar for the Generalife section shortly. This seemed like an easier and simpler option than trying to revise the existing text, which would have required some clean-up and a few corrections in addition to sources. Since both of those topics have their own articles, which have been revised and are well-sourced, I assumed there'd be no serious objection to this, but feel free to discuss below. I haven't worked on the Albaicin and the later Christian-era monuments of the city, so I will leave those sections to other editors or for another time. R Prazeres (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Add new section "Demographics"

I think adding a new section about Granada demographics would be a good idea, and also updating some information such as the city population in text (second paragraph, population by 2005) and the infobox template (population by 2018). The spanish wiki article already offers a good reference for this new section, with a population pyramid, foreign population and the different urban areas at municipal level. I could translate it easily. If someone thinks of more suitable data for this new section or just want to give their opinion, feel free to discuss below. Aarón Mayo (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. Carlstak (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

Granada is from Latin Granata and from Arabic غرناطة (Ġarnāṭa) Bompanigcc (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not very helpful, to be honest, because you didn't provide a source, but in any case I've expanded the section with what a number of reliable sources say ([1]) . R Prazeres (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)