Talk:Emirate of Granada

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)

See Talk:Nasrid dynasty#Sultans or Emirs? --FordPrefect42 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2009 (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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request 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)

^ not a single RS was referenced to support any of the OP's statements - big no-no for the TP's 50.111.8.86 (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2022 (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)

Extended content

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)

Like the ones I named above. Agricolae (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but this article differs, and I think that an addition about the founder of the emirate and the dynasty is important to add here, because the article seems incomplete by not adding the originator and lineage. Isamaxzs (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"but this article differs" Does it? How so? "the article seems incomplete by not adding the originator and lineage" That is your personal opinion, one Applodion and I do not share. Don't expect further response if the only rationale you can give is the rough equivalent of "I think it should be there because I think it should be there". Agricolae (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Extent of Almohad territory 1230

"[1230] roughly corresponded to the modern Spanish provinces of Granada, Almería, and Málaga"

Given that bothCordoba and Seville had yet to be captured by the forces of Castile, this description seems overly restricted JF42 (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You're correct, that description applies to the eventual Emirate of Granada, not the Almohad territories (regardless of their losses at the time). I've reworded it and added a general reference in support. Thanks for spotting that. R Prazeres (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

De nada JF42 (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Arabic/historical name?

There's some implicit WP:OR in the article's opening; it provides the Arabic name as إمارة غرﻧﺎﻃﺔ (Imārat Ġarnāṭah), but that's nothing more than a translation of this Wikipedia article's title. Likewise with the following Spanish translation of "Nasrid Kingdom of Granada" (Reino Nazarí de Granada). Since this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, these translations serve no purpose here. Are there any reliable references that discuss what the state was called by contemporary sources, in Arabic or even in Castilian sources? R Prazeres (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Good point. A translation of "Nasrid Caliphate" might be a candidate. See this. DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to reply here, indeed that's another interesting source to look at. At first glance, I'm not sure if it mentions the state being referred to as such, but it would be good to include in a discussion about the various titles the Nasrids used for themselves. (That could be a new section at Nasrid dynasty, for example.) R Prazeres (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussions about the pre-modern names of states can often be anachronistic. The naming of a polity (even talking about a "state" can be anachronistic) in the pre-modern era often, but not always, is a WP:SYNTH exercise by analogy from a rulers claimed titles. There are notable exceptions, Res Publica Romana, Ērānshahr etc, but it's a common mistake in Wikipedia to assume that every polity must have had an "official" name. In this period, I think it's typically best to leave it at the ruler's title and not to extrapolate further. But I don't know if the Nasrid kingdom comes into the rarer category of a "proper" state name. DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and to my knowledge no, neither "Nasrid kingdom", "Emirate of Granada", etc are official names. To my knowledge they're just modern historiographical terms (probably like Mamluk Sultanate, where there's a section explaining this). Which is presumably why reliable references use many similar variations interchangeably. There may be actual historical terms that can be drawn from primary sources (e.g. diplomatic correspondence), but like I said above we would need secondary sources to confirm what they are, if they exist.

So I guess my question in the meantime is: should these non-English names be kept in the lead, since they're merely translations? R Prazeres (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

My instinct is to take them out. However, will it be subject to incessant drive-by re-instatements? Will it be worth the effort? :) DeCausa (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

A valid question, hehe. We could try and leave a hidden comment for future editors. R Prazeres (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Go for it and let's see! DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the feedback. If anyone does find more relevant sources on this specific question, further discussion is still welcome. R Prazeres (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Start date

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@181.199.63.238: discuss here rather than edit war. DeCausa (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The main reason why my editions were reverted was due to mistakes in the date, that case was already resolved when I discovered that in fact this sultanate was established in 1232 due to the creation of dynasties, the only thing that I editted recently as you can see was is changing the date below from 1238 to 1232 to make things coherent (In the part of Sultans of Granada, to avoid confusion), and also the language section, that section should be in bold, it is the most common form that I have seen, that's all, that form in common languages is the most common format 181.199.63.238 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit ([1]) looks fine, I think DeCause may have assumed you were just arguing again through your edit summaries. (Correct me if I'm wrong, DeCausa.) The date should indeed be 1232 in that lower section as well, for consistency and per sources.

I don't know that the language and religion subheadings in the infobox need to be in bold though; I haven't compared it systematically but I've definitely seen no bolded used in many infoboxes. This is just a format question, though, I have no objections either way. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

And also, I promise that in case of affirmations I will provide references more frequently if needed, like dates for example, if the date is debated, like in this case with the Emirate of Granada, 1232 or 1238, if someone or me wants to put for example 1238 that needs reference, that I will put, that case seems necessary a reference. I will be more aware if my edit that I’m doing needs a reference or not, and if I realize that needs one I will put it, for example “French was the language of the upper classes on England for 300 years”, needs reference, and luckily there is on the page Kingdom of England. 181.199.63.238 (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Flag source?

I was looking at the sources for the current flag included in the infobox, but the links in the Commons file description (here) have expired and it's not clear what source this flag is based on. It's possible the link was simply to a source supporting the Nasrid association with red. Given the prevalence of unsourced and poorly-sourced flag creations in Wiki Commons, it's possible that the "flag" is nothing more than the well-known Nasrid motto superimposed on the color red, but not based on any actual historically-attested flag, which would be WP:OR if so. (The blazon/coat-of-arms of course is well-attested and still visible today in the Alhambra.) R Prazeres (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Longest state/dynasty

Snowstormfigorion, could you clarify this comment? According to whom/what is it factually longer, then, if the sources I cited clearly show that to be disputable? I see no reason to revert a footnote which illuminates what reliable sources actually say in order to reinstate the same unsourced claim you removed earlier ([2]). R Prazeres (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we're talking about states/countires, not dynasties. According to the sources in this article and other Andalusi states (excluding the taifas, and the al-Andalus being simply a province of the Umayyad Caliphate, the Almoravid dynasty and Almohad Caliphate), among the Emirate of Cordoba/FDFFD (173 years) and Caliphate of Cordoba (102), the Emirate of Granada (260) was the longest-lived. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not clearer. According to what sources? The distinction between "dynasty" and "state" makes little difference here, unless the sources are differentiating them accordingly. Otherwise this sounds like WP:OR. As DeCausa pointed out (even if I think he mistook your edit for an addition), it's not mentioned in the body of the article either.

In any case, if there is a disagreement between sources, then WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be included, which is what was done here. R Prazeres (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And to clarify: the "Emirate" and the "Caliphate" of Cordoba are not two different states. Just because Wikipedia splits the topic into two articles does not imply anything further. R Prazeres (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with R Prazeres footnote. Its WP:SYNTH to state the "Emirate of Granada" had greater longevity than the the Umayyads. They claimed they were merely a continuation of their Damascus Caliphate i.e a "state" (whatever that means in this era) from 756 to 1031. DeCausa (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies as I wasn't aware of the Umayyad Emirate/Caliphate ruling, so sure, footnote it is. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

BTW can someone fix the citation errors? Snowstormfigorion (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Done ([3]). R Prazeres (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox summary

@157.100.113.220, I'm responding to your suggestions on my talk page here, so I don't have to repeat myself later:

• The most appropriate start year is 1232, per the sources cited in the article which date the start of Nasrid rule to that year, when Ibn al-Ahmar was first declared as a ruler in Arjona. 1238 is the year he moved to Granada. If you bother to actually read this article and Muhammad I of Granada, along with the cited sources, it should be clear why the infobox summaries are written the way they are.
• Likewise, the religion and language summaries in the infobox are correct as they are – minus potentially one detail (see bullet point below). Again, read the article. What you're proposing here is incorrect and is not based on what the article and the sources actually say. Mozarabic is not spoken within Granada's territory at this time, per the cited source, which states that it had disappeared from this region along with the Mozarabs themselves.
  • The one detail which could be removed (but not replaced with something else) is "Berber languages". These would have been spoken by the new Zanata arrivals, but the cited source in the article (see Sarr 2020, p.180-182) states we don't know how much or how long the new Berber immigrants retained their own dialects. In a previous edit of the languages in the infobox ([4]) I left this in as plausible, but I have no opinion on whether to remove it or not, since its long-term status is unknown.

Do not change the article's sourced content again unless a consensus of editors emerges here to accept your proposed change. R Prazeres (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Hello pal, I took advantage of this time of thinking (and also my IP changed) about you told me and based on that this would be the infobox and why:

Emirate of Granada
1238-1492
Official languages	Andalusi Arabic
Minority languages	Berber languages
Religion	Sunni Islam (majority)

1238 would be the adequate year of the formal establishment of the Emirate of Granada, because it is stated that in 1232 Muhammad established the Taifa of Arjona, and in 1238 he moved to Granada where he established the mentioned Emirate, and putting 1232 as the year of establishment of the Emirate of Granada could cause confusion to other readers because it was in 1238 when Muhammad settled on Granada, according to its article. And official language Andalusi Arabic because it is mentioned in the article that the population was largely homogeneously Muslim and by that time Mozarabic in that part dissapeared because of persecution, and Mozarabs fled to the Iberian kingdoms, and minority because it is stated that Arabic was the main language, and Berber largely assimilated in the Arabic dialect, but there some Berber settlers as well. This suggestions are based on what is stated in this article and articles related to this. And also fix in other pages c., it is not estimated, is well-documented the year in which Muhammad arrived to Granada and established the Emirate, putting that also list of Sultans. 157.100.111.112 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

How is any of this an improvement? Why would we remove Judaism or Catholicism from the infobox? Why put "Andalusi Arabic", the colloquial form of Arabic, as "official language"? And it's not "documented" that 1238 is when Ibn al-Ahmar "established" the "Emirate of Granada", because "Emirate of Granada" is merely the title of this Wikipedia article (it could just as easily be called "Nasrid Emirate" or other things). The date of his move to Granada is not what counts here, and the article does not limit its coverage to 1238 and after. Again, the infobox reflects the article, which reflects the cited sources. Leave it as is. R Prazeres (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

But pal, there are two articles: The Taifa of Arjona which was established in 1232 and the other one Emirate of Granada, if we put that the date of establishment of the Emirate of Granada is in 1232 then it will cause confusion, as the title of Muhammad as sultan was given approximately in 1238 according to its page, it will be coherent and confusion is avoided and accurately reflects title, according to year, also I will fix the languages, putting bold like for example Vernacular languages, I understood what you told me in terms on languages, that the colloquial form is not official. So please guys let me edit the part of establishment, it was formally in c. 1238 when he arrived on Granada and ruled the area as well, please. 157.100.111.112 (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Do not edit the infobox. If there really is confusion, then you can propose to rename the article.

As for Taifa of Arjona, I didn't know that page existed, and unsurprisingly it's an unsourced stub. It has little reason to exist, given that reliable sources don't speak of it (and it also obscures the fact that Ibn al-Ahmar based himself in Jaen prior to being in Granada). The fix to that is to merge the unsourced stub to this article. R Prazeres (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It's also clear now that you previously edit-warred on this article, because only one other user (now blocked) has tried to add bold font to the infobox before, which has no basis in Wikipedia's manual of style. R Prazeres (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Propose merging Taifa of Arjona into Emirate of Granada.

Short explanation: Taifa of Arjona has been an unsourced stub since its creation and constitutes an unnecessary WP:SPLIT from Emirate of Granada.

Longer explanation: The stub merely covers the brief early years of Ibn al-Ahmar's rule prior to establishing himself permanently in Granada in 1238 and this is now covered here at Emirate of Granada. It doesn't require a separate article, anymore than (for example) Fatimid Caliphate or Almohad Caliphate need separate articles to discuss the years prior to moving to their respective long-term capitals. This period is part of the Nasrid dynasty's rule and part of the history of their emirate/kingdom, which is why sources commonly count 1232 as the start date of this period, e.g.:.

The stub also involves some light WP:OR, as reliable sources do not speak of a distinct "Taifa of Arjona"; a Google Book search of the term returns zero results ([5]), for example. (I'm aware of the title of a 2005 book by Boloix-Gallardo book in Spanish, but that's all.) It also ignores the fact that Ibn al-Ahmar was based in Jaen prior to moving to Granada in 1238. The stub's infobox seems to assume that there was a formal "Taifa of Arjona" that continued to exist de jure after Ibn al-Ahmar moved to Granada in 1238, but that has no further basis in published references, to my knowledge: Ibn al-Ahmar simply ruled various territories from wherever he was based. R Prazeres (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

References