Jump to content

Talk:Muhammad XII of Granada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope of word "Boabdil"

[edit]

Although he is referred to as "Boabdil" in Spanish the word itself is a Spanish "corruption" and not a "rendering", this is a mis-statement. Moughera (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

The place where Boabdil turned to look at his beloved Granada for the last time is actually called "El Suspiro del Moro" (the sigh of the Mooor)

David Santamaria, 20-Apr-05

Question : there is a question about the place of his death and resting place. His grave is said by the inhabitants of Tlemcen (Algeria) and Fes (Marocco) to be in their respective cities. In Tlemcen, the gravestone is said to have been taken by the french in Tlemcen (1847) and sent to the international exhibition in Paris (1898) where it would have misteriously disappeard (source : Mr. El Hassar Bénali). Does anybody knows something about this controversy ? We lack so much sources about the life of Muhammad XII of Gharnata...

Jibrîl 09-apr-2006

Date of Death?

The article starts by listing his lifespan as:

(1460?–1527)

But later on says:

... but he soon crossed the Strait of Gibraltar to Fez, where he died in 1533.

--Aapold 01:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aixa and Ferdinand: Sources?

[edit]

I'm trying to find sources for this union, or even the existence of Aixa, and haven't yet found anything but links back to other Wikipedia articles. The footnote here is not to a reliable source, but to someone's blog entry. Given that Boabdil's life has been highly mythologized, it wouldn't surprise me that Aixa is another legend, though not one than I can source at all.

- Eileen R 161.184.107.221 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "Spain"

[edit]

Given the period described, perhaps "Spain" should be replaced by the names of the relevant political entities (Catholic Monarchs, Kingdom of Aragon, Kingdom of Castile) or geographic denominations (Iberia, Southern Iberia, Iberian Peninsula and so forth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.65.6 (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once told me that the reason Wikipedia uses modern names instead of contemporary names is because of WP:ASTONISH, but I haven't found the rule confirming it, but the editor in question wouldn't stop reverting my edits in the name of this rule when I used contemporary names in another article so I'd say that there is a reason why modern names are used.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad XII 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:

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) 10:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XI?

[edit]

Is the numbering XI or XII? Seeing multiple sources which list him at XI (e.g. Collins English Dictionary and Larousse). Gotitbro (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting "of Granada"

[edit]

Was Boabdil really the only Muhammad XII? Because the latter title seems a bit ambiguous. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the many monarchs named Muhammad, I can't seem to find another "Muhammad XII", at least not one that is notable enough to come up in searches (and thus this might be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that name either way). Even in Bosworth's fairly thorough "New Islamic Dynasties", he appears to be the only one. As Aintabli stated, WP:NCROY would seem to apply here: "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." R Prazeres (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then I suppose. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is disputed: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Titles of European monarchs. I would not remove "of Granada". Srnec (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

@Snowstormfigorion: on what basis are you claiming that this image is a "later copy"? The new file actually has a source with background information on the painting, unlike the other file. Perhaps @Saguescabe can comment if they know anything more. Even if it were a copy, what difference does it make when it's clearly a higher quality image of exactly the same thing? R Prazeres (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current painting was definitely made prior, which is made clear and elaborated on the image's talk page on Commons, thus the other is a later copy; also the original's quality is sufficient and is by no means subpar. It's also the most well known and most associated painting with Muhammad XII and what the readers would expect to see, in contrast to the other image. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is said on the Commons talk page says is that this is a 19th-century engraving based on an older oil painting. We now have sources ([1], [2], [3]) describing this as a 17th-century oil painting. Unless Amandajm (who wrote the explanation at the Commons talk page) can clarify otherwise, this would appear to be the original painting. So it's the other way around, the black-and-white image is a much later copy in a different medium from the original. R Prazeres (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, File:El_rey_chico_de_Granada.jpg was uploaded from here, source which also gives the date as being of 17th century and that it's from a private collection.
If you see the file's talk page, you will see that the painting belonged to Count Anatoly Demidov's collection until it was sold as lot 208 in Collections de San Donato in 1870, and the date was erroneously given as being 15th century. His collection was dispersed in Paris between 1863 and 1870, where Hôtel Drouot is located. It was purchased by the Marquis of San Carlos, and was probably resold until the Countess of Paris, which is mentioned on Drouot website, sold her collection and this painting to auction. It is also said that it was on a private collection, on 16 September 2023. This was published on 21 September. So I'm sure this is the original painting. Saguescabe (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess I skimmed through that seeing that I was basing this on the "Spanish School, 15th century" listing date on the file's description template. Although, R Prazeres, what you mentioned I should've made clear above; which is that this needs more clarification as it's not backed by any sources, thus, it's not evident which of the paintings came first. Regardless, as stated, the fact that the current painting is the most widely associated with Muhammad XII is the foremost in this. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understood your last reply. It is obvious from the sources given above that the image uploaded by Saguescabe is the original painting in question, or certainly more verifiable in its origin. There is no basis for claiming the black-and-white image is older or "most widely associated" with Muhammad XII, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source and there is nothing outside the Wiki Commons description to support this, which is certainly an editor's mistake and should be ignored as unverifiable. (It's highly implausible that any version of the image dates to the 15th century either way.) A 17th-century full-colour oil painting is clearly not based on a black-and-white engraving. Saguescabe's image should be restored, and I am sure that the wider community would agree if we these are the two options available.
Alternatively, since no contemporary depiction of the person is available, we could remove the infobox image altogether (e.g. compare with featured articles Muhammad II of Granada, Muhammad III of Granada, Ismail I of Granada). The oil painting could be included further below in the article instead (while removing one of the other non-contemporary paintings if needed). Optionally, we could move the image of the coin to the infobox instead, which is a common choice for other pre-modern Islamic rulers (e.g. Yusuf I of Granada, Muhammad V of Granada, Harun al-Rashid, al-Mu'izz li-Din Allah, etc). R Prazeres (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add a comment, I ended up finding an entire book (I haven't read the it yet), about the "true portrait" of him, said to date back to the 15th century (La batalla de Lucena y el verdadero retrato de Boabdil, estudio historico-artístico). It depicts him imprisoned with a crown, it has similarities with the oil portrait, which seems to have been inspired by this one, and this one really seems to have been made prior. I think it would be a better alternative between these two, or if not, a coin from his reign. Saguescabe (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
haven't read it yet* Saguescabe (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prazeres, the painting's association with Muhammad XII predates its presence on Commons and Wikipedia, with it being repeatedly used more than any other portrait in historical texts, academic publications, and other reputable sources. And again, which of the paintings came first cannot be definitively proven; also, both are historical paintings of the subject, which of the two we simply have more sources for is impertinent, and the assertion that other painting is "clearly not based on a black-and-white engraving" is erroneous; as oil paintings that are recreations or based on other forms of work though uncommon have existed throughout history. Again and as stated, the current painting's use in representation of the subject in academic contexts far surpasses the other. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Historical texts, academic publications, and other reputable sources": what sources? Please provide them. R Prazeres (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current caption calls the image both an engraving and a painting. This does not inspire confidence. I would restore the oil painting. The title at the top of the engraving would seem to indicate it is of a painting. I suppose the oil painting could be a recreationg based on an engraving, but then what reason is there to prefer the engraving over the painting if it all goes back to a lost painting? Srnec (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting, but unless @Snowstormfigorion produces evidence to support their last statement above, then it seems there's no support for keeping the black-and-white image. R Prazeres (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source I've looked into uses the current portrait, with a minority using the one with subject in a crown. Thus, the first criterion of MOS:LEADIMAGE, which states that "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see.", applies here. Though–on a merely representational level–of all the portraits of Muhammad XII, using one of him with bloodshot eyes should be a last approach; I'd even go on to say that the MOS's "appropriate representation" could be argued on this. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question: what sources? R Prazeres (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source on the matter that uses any sort of visual representation? See Google Books, WorldCat, etc.; are there any that use the previous image? Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about? Our entire discussion was about two images of the same portrait, of which the only sources presented so far are the places where the files were extracted ([4], [5]), neither of which support your claims. Then out of blue you replied that the old black-and-white image is well-established in academic sources outside Wikiepdia ([6]). I have read on the Nasrids in many scholarly sources and as far as I've seen none include or mention this portrait (either version of it).
So either you provide the sources you're talking about that support your claim that this is the original work or, as the only editor opposing this simple and obvious improvement, you are WP:STONEWALLING, exactly like I warned you on your talk page, which is a form of disruptive behaviour. R Prazeres (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prazeres, what are you talking about? I didn't refer the current image's established status "out of the blue"; I only stated it following the realization and consensus that neither images have reliable sources evidencing their date of creation, thus acknowledging that my previous statement about the current file being the original is erroneous; and that despite this, the image's established use in sources is the primary reasoning. Yes, the mention of portraits of Muhammad XII is rare in publications, though when done, it's almost always in reference to the one currently in use, followed by the one of Boabdil sporting a crown; a such and as outlined above, MOS:LEADIMAGE evidently applies. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Boabdil's death

[edit]

Several historians affirm that Boabdil died in Tlemsen and not in Fez here are some sources: https://www.google.fr/books/edition/Compl%C3%A9ment_de_l_histoire_des_Beni_Zeiya/EYcBAAAAMAAJ?hl=fr&gbpv=1&dq=asile+tlemcen+boabdil&pg=PA403&printsec=frontcover https://cths.fr/an/savant.php?id=109835 https://www.google.fr/books/edition/Jews_Christians_and_Muslims_in_the_Medit/hZfrAgAAQBAJ?hl=fr&gbpv=1&dq=%22boabdil%22+%22tlemcen%22&pg=PA56&printsec=frontcover https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k320790b/f427.image.r=boabdil%20tlemcen%20%C3%A9pitaphe?rk=150215;2 The Moor's Last Stand How Seven Centuries of Muslim Rule in Spain Came to an End By Elizabeth Drayson

so it would be better to specify that he died in North Africa rather than in a specific place to avoid problems and debates 2A01:E0A:13C:64E0:F91E:8E1B:44B7:970A (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the death place from the infobox entirely, as indeed the article already describes this and other possible scenarios, which would be impractical to summarize in an infobox. Even the death date is uncertain. R Prazeres (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 17:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad XII of Granada → Muhammad XII – According to WP:NCROY, only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed. There were no other Muhammad XIIs in history. Aintabli (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 15:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_XII_of_Granada&oldid=1243832755"