Talk:Granada

message: I've changed Sierra Nevada to 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)
thread_title: untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: untitled 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Muslims converted or expelled? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: 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)
thread_title:  Granada 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  1066 massacre of Jews 

message: 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)
thread_title:  those 31 percent 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Early History subsection of History section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The merge has now been carried out --Bye for now  (PTT) 13:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The timeline article has been restored, per WP:CON etiquette guidelines. -- M2545 (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Please see HERE. Thanks, --Bye for now  (PTT) 16:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Early History edits 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bull Fighting  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Early History section again... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revising some monuments sections 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it's a great idea. Carlstak (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add new section "Demographics" 

message: Granada is from Latin Granata and from Arabic غرناطة (Ġarnāṭa) Bompanigcc (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 () . R Prazeres (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology