Talk:Granada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details. |
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)
When I first converted the images to thumbnails (in an attempt to make the page neater) my layout wasn't great. The insertion of the heading "Photos of the city" was, though, a bit redundant. (It's pretty obvious they're photos.) I've removed the heading and used a table to tidy-up the layout. Gary Jones 18:01, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
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)
I think you don't even know the difference between Grenada and Granada. You are just wasting people's time. -- ICE77 84.223.76.86 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
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.
Contents |
[edit] 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)
- ...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)
- 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.
[edit] 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 Muslims. 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
