Talk:Muhammad I of Granada

message: Mohammed I ibn Nasr nacio en en Arjona (Jaen). No en Arjuno
Mohammed I Ibn Nasr was born in Arjona (Jaen). Non in Arjuno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singara (talk • contribs) 
:This has been corrected now. HaEr48 (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Arjuno-Arjona

message: Thanks  for the copyedit. About your two clarification requests:
* About the second paragraph of the lead, indeed Muhammad's 18 years of peaceful relations with Castile was followed by conflicts, beginning with 1264 when Muhammad supported Muslim rebels in Castile. If this transition sounded abrupt, I added "however" and "turned against", to help reader realize this. Does that help? I'm open to other suggestions as well.
* About the Muslim vs Christian POV regarding the reason for "Initial conflict with Castile", the secondary source (Harvey) just presented the two accounts without deciding who's right. I don't object to your removal of "crusading drive". Do you need further clarification about this? 
--HaEr48 (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I added contemporary to make it clear that the disagreement is in primary sources, not secondary sources. Is there any additional secondary source analysis about the causes? (Secondary sources do not always fully rely on primary source accounts but have a more complex analysis. I think it would be good to say something here about what the majority view is in current secondary sources about the causes of the war, as this is a different issue from what the primary source accounts say.)Seraphim System (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the clause about 1,500 sheep because I did not think it was essential and I thought the sentence was easier to read without it. I think "tried to send supplies" and "efforts were thwarted by beseigers" is stronger without being interrupted by the detail about sheep—in my opinion this lessened the impact of the sentence so I removed it. Another question about the initial conflicts in Castille — since this is a biography, I don't think we should go into too much detail about the battles, but do the sources say anything more about Muhammad's involvement or responses to the conflict, beyond trying to relieve Jaen and agreeing to terms with Ferdinand? Seraphim System (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: The article as of now used a mixture of "Muhammad" or "Ibn al-Ahmar" when referring to the subject throughout the article. e.g. "Before Ibn al-Ahmar's rise to prominence, Ibn Hud was the de facto ruler of Al-Andalus" vs " until the early 1260s, when various actions by Castile alarmed Muhammad". Sources use both names, and the preference vary from source to source. From the sources referenced by the article:
* L.P. Harvey: Islamic Spain, 1250 to 1500 (1992): prefer Muhammad
* The Encyclopaedia of Islam: Nasrids (1993): prefer Muhammad
* Kennedy, Hugh. Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus (2004): prefer Ibn al-Ahmar (see p.272 and around)
* Simon R. Doubleday. The Wise King (2015): prefer Muhammad
* Joseph F. O'Callaghan, The Gibraltar Crusade (2011): prefer Ibn al-Ahmar 
* W Montgomery Watt,  A History of Islamic Spain (1965): prefer Muhammad (see p.126)
* The Cambridge History of Islam (1970): prefer Muhammad (see p.429)
* Francisco Vidal Castro (2000). "Frontera, genealogía y religión": prefer ibn al-Ahmar (see pp 797-8)
*  Antonio Fernández-Puertas (1997). "The Three Great Sultans": prefer Muhammad I
From these, it seems there are no consensus, although Muhammad is slightly more prevalent. Moreover, "Muhammad I" is a more systematic name (regnal name + numeral) in sync with the naming of other European monarchs in Wikipedia. It also links nicely to the Muhammad II of Granada up to Muhammad XII of Granada article. Therefore I will update all to Muhammad or Muhammad I for consistency. HaEr48 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common name: Muhammad I or Ibn al-Ahmar 

message: First image on the article has been replaced. Revert this image back to what it was before. 107.204.188.83 (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone fixed it.   HaEr48 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Vandalization 

message: Why on the top is another date od birth?
"Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Yusuf ibn Nasr(1195 – 22 January 1273), "
...
...
...
and at the end is another?
"Muhammad I of Granada
Nasrid dynasty
Cadet branch of the Banu Khazraj
Born: 1191 Died: 22 January 1273"
So 1195 or 1191 or... just better leave (? – 22 January 1273)? 
 Lien Shan (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1195 birth is sourced in the article, and the 1191 is not, so I updated the succession box to use 1195. HaEr48 (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth