Jump to content

Talk:Córdoba, Spain/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

One can say Many Roman Monuments

The mosque was a Roman Temple when mouslims arrived; the Roman bridge over Guadalquivir, the triumph door, the theater and many other monuments are in favour of this theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldofstars (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

ROMAN NAME?

Before Roman, there were not anything; Nothing; after that, the city knew all its richness.

Why does 'Jewish Quarter' link to 'Ghetto'? There is a sinagoga in midle of this quarter, I think Jews decide to live closed to their church; it is correct than Jews was prosecuted many time by muslims and after Catholic Kings were many time tortured or killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldofstars (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Karduba (Kart-Iuba). Iuba, was a general who died fighting in the Region at 230 BC; before latins or Romans other people lived in the region; Romans began the construction of the city and the first constructions are Romans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldofstars (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The name of Corduba was the original of the Iberos city Roman found when they began to conquered Spain. Romans settle a militar location close to them. Due to they got on well, Roman decided created a real city, and the Iberian name for that area was taken by Romans to named the new city. Few time after, Augusto gave to Cordoba the status of Colonia, and the name became Colonia Patricia Corduba.
So, there were two cities, the Iberian and the Roman one. As time went by, Iberians moved to the Roman Cordoba until finally, the Iberian one disappeared. It´s not true to say "Before Roman, there were not anything, as someone said before.
For checking this information: Arqueocordoba, develop by the Archaeology department of University of Cordoba.

Córdoba

This article needs more work, it doesn't look good. -- ICE77 84.222.103.59 11:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It needs more text. It also needs a representative photo of the typical whitewashed look of buildings in modern Cordoba, which is very distinctive from northern and eastern Spain. I have a few at http://dheera.net/photos/thumb.php?q=europe2005/andalucia I'd be willing to insert, but I'm hesitant to do so yet because the article already has too many photos and too little text.

Also perhaps one should write about the Flamenco events, and create a transportation section. Cordoba has a bus system, is part of a convenient bike rental system, and is serviced by high-speed train as well. 18.62.12.133 16:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Flamenco events ?

Flamenco events in 2007?, even in Cordoba there are a few shows of Flamenco per year; but, you are right, the article is uncomplete and the article says the flamenco is very popular in Cordoba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldofstars (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Largest in the World Aside from Constantinople?

I suspect Chang'an (modern day Xian) and Baghdad were both considerably larger than either Córdoba or Constantinople in the 10th century, contrary to what the opening paragraph states. Furthermore Kaifeng, Hangzhou, Zhongdu (modern day Beijing) and Kyoto may also have been larger than either city. It would seem unlikely that Europe, which at this time had less people and was far less advanced than either the Abbasid Caliphate or the Song Empire, would be home to the world's two-largest cities. I'm not going to alter anything yet because I don't have any totally reliable sources, but the 'Historical urban community sizes' article on this site suggests that Constantinople and Córdoba were smaller than Baghdad and Chang'an at very least. The link provided, admittedly does place Cordoba as the largest for a brief period, but that is in contradiction with what I have read elsewhere, so perhaps the article could be re-worded: 'It is believed by some that Córdoba was the largest city in the world from 935 to 1013'.

I believe Christopher Tyerman, in "God's War", claims that Baghdad was the largest city in the world in this period (1 million inhabitants). He lists Cairo and Constantinople as having 500,000 inhabitants. The claims that Cordoba is the largest city in the world seems spurious at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.228.240 (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

at any case, very large

From Roman bridge to Medinat al Zahara are more than 10 kilometres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldofstars (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent bull teather

Bulls are prosecuted and killed for pleasure of female and male. The article does not talk anyting about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldofstars (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to editing in your native language. Your English isn't anywhere near as good as you think it is. Iantnm (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

What on earth is the evidence for this statement?

In Roman times, the city had more culturals buildings than Rome.
    • I removed the statement and reworded it. It looks like this statement was stolen from answers.com or one of the numerous sites, mostly promotional, that seem to have copied each other. Ther is no strict agreed definition of a cultural building, so it's meaningless to say more. Furthermore, Roman times is extremely vague. Dheerav2 15:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Gibberish

The article speaks of:

Monasteries and broods (some of them are desafected)

What on earth does this mean? even in Spanish? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

omg fix the wild sentence wrapping problem I created, thanks. 69.132.91.220 (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

---

The History section states (18/12/11):

"The first historical mention of a settlement dates, however, to the Carthaginian expansion across the Guadalquivir, when the general Hamilcar Barca renamed it Kartuba, from Kart-Juba, meaning "the City of Juba", the latter being a Numidian commander who had died in a battle nearby."

However, the article on Hamilcar Barca says he lived from "ca. 275 BC – 228 BC" and "Juba" (linked to Juba I of Numidia) lived from "c. 85 BC – 46 BC". How could Barca name the city after someone not yet born? Jma (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

Patio festival

Why there is no info about Patio festival ? Kupsztal (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Feria

Currently, the article says that most important festival in Cordoba is the 'Patios', but the 'Feria' have a lot more people (approximately 100% of the inhabitants, the second weekend people come from across the province, and along week people from all over Spain) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.168.59.62 (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fernando Tejero

Fernando Tejero is not a flamenco artist, but an actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.153.50 (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Cordoba as symbol of Islamic Conquest

To all the people who value political correctness over the facts of the existence in the Muslim world by some, that Cordoba is a symbol of Islamic conquest. (i.e. Bkwillwm, Steelersfan7roe - obviously not New Yorkers.)

Please consider this quote from the reference I provided:

http://www.elaph.com/Web/opinion/2010/5/562230.html :

...as is well known that the Mosque of Cordoba, the first was built in a Spanish cities by Muslims after the that have occupied the country Christian and killed men and insulted women and Ngulwhn to the Arab countries Kjuari and maids who provide sexual pleasure for them, and this colonial history is still the Arabs and Muslims boast about it and Imjdonh and consider it a symbol of strength and greatness and insensitive ashamed of pages filled with crimes shameful!

(Disclosure: this quote is not verbatim, because it was generated by Google Translate of the original Arabic, but it's a verbatim quote of that output.) Picador127 (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cordoba as symbol of Islamic Conquest

I dont know that opinions, or quotes of opinions (espically ones that are not in english) belong in this artical. You could just as easly say that Cordoba is a symbol of conquest to some people of roman heritage/beliefs, or that it represents a symbol of civilation and education to some muslims. To drive my point home you could say that some believe cordoba to be frequently visited by UFO's http://www.disclose.tv/forum/ufo-over-southern-spain-march-30th-2009-t3128.html 8/27/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaska78 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"(espically [sic] ones that are not in english [sic]) belong in this artical. [sic]" - well said, Alaska78. So you don't think an opinion piece written in Arabic, for an Arabic audience is relevant to a reference regarding an Islamic-world sentiment? Ordinarily, I wouldn't waste my time with this wikinonsense, but since I live in New York City, where 19 Islamic Fundamentalists MURDERED 39 of my co-workers - I have an interest in pointing out certain non-trivial, political facets of the description of the city of Cordoba. I guess I'm done. You terrorist sympathizers win because I cannot waste any more of my time reversing the edits of communist, Dukakis-hugging moon maidens. Wait until it happens in your city you freakn' hippies. Picador127 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

^Stupid rants FTW. That is totally the way to get your point across, rave and scream like a child. Genius. 70.187.179.139 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed minor detail from introduction

Although it is certainly true that some people claim Cordoba is a symbol of Islamic conquest, this piece of cultural trivia is not sufficiently important to be in the introduction. If you'd like to re-add it, you could for instance create a section near the end of the article called Cultural Allusions, or some such. Ordinary Person (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

well, that's just your opinion, OP and it's certainly not authoritative - so I will just put it back; thanks anyway. Picador127 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There are many problems with your addition to the lead. First, Cordoba has been under Spanish control for centuries and there is a Christian church in the center of the mosque; It seems strange to just jam a sentence into the lead asserting that Cordoba is a symbol of Muslim dominance. Also, randomly inserting factoids into articles isn't very good editing. I ran the article through Google translate, and there doesn't seem to be much concerning Cordoba as a symbol of Muslim dominance. It references the Mezquita, but doesn't really say anything about the city. Albeit, that could be the machine translation. Really, when it comes down to it, randomly inserting sentences in articles based on the latest political meme doesn't make a good encyclopedia. Is there any source that refers indicates that Cordoba has served as symbol of Muslim dominance besides those written in the past few weeks regarding the Manhattan mosque?--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't add it - I merely put it back. It appears to have been added with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%C3%B3rdoba,_Spain&oldid=373642198
  • I could just as easily claim that the motivations for people removing it are based on "the latest political meme", as you can claim it was the reason it was added.
  • the fact that Cordoba has been under Spanish control for centuries does not at all diminish the symbolism - are you saying that the older a historical event, the less relevant it is? Try telling that to the Sunnis and Shi'as about the Battle of Siffin
  • I think we both know that if you asked any radical Islamist if the Caliphate of Cordoba should be restored, they would definitely say yes.
  • Thanks for your comments.Picador127 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Generally in Cordoba we believe the city should simbolize tolerance between the three mayor religions of the time of the Caliphate (even though there was conflict between them and dominance of Islam over Cristianism and judaism). It was in Cordoba also where Averroes came up with the doctrine of the double truth and double use of science and religion,as different ways to reach truth, therefore simbolizing tolerance of religion with science (even though I believe that, like many scientists and philosophers, averroes was merely sucking up to the religious people in power to be able to continue teaching his "controversial" science).

I therefore believe it would be better to say Cordoba is a simbol of tolerance in an age of religious wars and superstition, than a simbol of Islamic Conquest. It was in the Caliphate of Cordoba where the Coran was most loosely and liberaly understood, where images of animals and persons where created, where wine was drunk and pork was eaten, where science and philosophy could try and challenge religious authority, and from whence came a spirit of relative "tolerance" towards scientific and philosophical thought that reintroduced Aristotle to europe (through Toledo), fed the european scholastic schools, and ultimately gave rise to the Renaisance. It isa a simbol of Islam, and Spain as it should have been, had only the tolerant doctrines created there taken root rather than been exported to other countries and cultures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.136.123 (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Twinning

I don't believe the info about Cordoba's twin towns is right. I checked http://www.ayuncordoba.es/hermanamientos.html and the info on this page (the Cordoba town hall web page) is different from the one to be found on this wikipedia page. Can someone check it as well and make the changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.136.123 (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Arabic name

Many Spanish cities and toponyms have a name of Arabic origin. What's the reason to include the Arabic name of this city in the English article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.20.81 (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's not a bad idea. Córdoba does not have an Arabic origin, but it was at the hight of it's importance during the Omeiad Caliphate, during which the Arabic name would have been in use. Also, Cordoba's local government seem to take pride in having been a city of three cultures (Christian, Islamic, and Jewish. Why not inform visitors to the article of the city's name in English, Spanish, Arab, Hebrew and Latin? ~~DRHastings~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DRHastings (talk • contribs) 12:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in article title

The Spanish spelling of Cordoba is used here by inserting the accent over the first 'O'. However, the English spelling is used for Andalusia instead of the Spanish spelling Andalucía. Shouldn't it be one way or the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Depor23 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It does look bizarre. "Córdoba, Spain" would be better if just Córdoba isn't acceptable. Cordova is going the way of Leghorn and Tarent. Srnec (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Córdoba, Andalusia. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Name

Well, this could be a touchy issue, but after linking to this article on occasion from articles about the Moorish period, it strikes me that the name Córdoba, Spain is a poor choice of location. It's true that the city is currently in Spain, but its history includes Roman and Moorish periods, among others. Perhaps something more neutral like Córdoba (city)? --Delirium 01:19, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

It should be at Córdoba. Chameleon 09:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Either way is okay by me; this is certainly the most famous Córdoba, and the content at the Córdoba could be moved to something like "Cordoba (disambiguation)" if there are no objections. -- Infrogmation 19:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's the most famous, but unlike in cases like Paris, where the other uses are minor, I'm not sure it's as clear-cut: Córdoba, Argentina has 1,350,000 people, and is that country's second-largest city. --Delirium 05:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
I think Córdoba, Spain is the best name for the article. As Delirium said, there's a Cordoba, Argentina that is very significant as well. And I think the modern location of the city is fine. The article is on the city, which is in Spain. If this were an article like History of Córdoba, Spain, it might be more problematic.--Bkwillwm 17:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I´m Spanish and I think that "Córdoba, Spain" is -of course- the best name for the article. If We follow Delirium´s reasons, We can´t write an article called "London, England" or "NY, USA", because the history of these cities also includes differents periods of foreign domination or colonization. In any case, Corduba (Córdoba)was included in Hispania province in Roman Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.175.176 (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Córdoba or Córdova?

CORDOVA IS CORDOVA IS CORDOVA!

Why; if the Wikipedia article in French on the same topic can use the French word, the Catalan language page using the Catalan word, the Italian page using the Italian word, etcetera; can not the English-language version use the English name which has existed for this city for hundreds of years? I know it's some sort of politically correct pedantery, from people with more money than sense deciding that because they've been there on holiday for a week that the only version to be used to describe things abroad is in their (usually only approximate) version of what one of the languages in that area use.

Cordova is Cordova. It's the name of the city in English. Why use another language to describe it within an English text? Just like Naples is Naples, not Napoli, which is an Italian word. Rome is Rome, not Roma. Geneva is Geneva, even if these pedants prefer to say "I've just been to visit Geneve again. How beau it is in the montagnes..." or whatever other silly foreign word they jam into their conversation to show how ever-so-clever they are to have forgotten how to say it in English. Nine times in ten you find they don't even speak the language the so eagerly want to pepper their English with.

'Just a thought.

Patrick O' Solsti.

I'm English, and I've always known it as 'Cordoba', without the accent. There are plenty of precedents for foreign placenames which have traditionally had an English language version reverting to the original name used by nationals of that country even when speaking in English. Peking/Beijing is a contemporary example. Atlases published in the early 20th Century refer to a town called 'Leghorn' in Tuscany, but this has fallen into disuse and the Italian 'Livorno' is used instead. Similarly, I would argue for 'Puglia' (Italy), rather than 'Apuglia', because that is how I have always known it, but there are those who would disagree. There are no hard-and-fast rules for which is authentic or correct as the usage is constantly changing. 88.14.200.129 (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm American, and I've only heard "Cordoba" as well. I think it sounds nicer, too, but whatever.68.84.23.145 (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I've always heard it as Cordoba or Córdoba as well. Just because something has an English name doesn't mean that's the name that English speakers use. - Montréalais (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
There are many cities of course where the English name differs from the one used by the locals. Moscow, Paris and just down from the road from Cordoba, Seville all spring to mind. The titles of the English language wikipedia articles rightly refer to them as such and indeed anyone who tried to pronounce them as the locals do in English would sound faintly ridiculous. However I'm not convinced Cordoba falls into that category. Sure I've seen Cordova but only in older texts and not from anything that was written in my lifetime. It sounds rather quaint like referring to "the Argentine" or something. Its not being overly PC or pretentious to call it in wikipedia by the name that most people seem to call it nowadays. The English wikipedia is rightly using the common English name in the same way as the French or Catalan wikis would, it just happens that that name has become the same as the Spanish name, whatever it was called historically. If anyone has any evidence that the Cordova form is sufficiently used in contemporary usage to take precedence fine. Reynardthefox (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why mix English and Spanish? It should be Córdoba, Andalucía or Cordoba, Andalusia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrodesIII (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation tag

Not debating the use of "Córdoba", "Cordoba", or "Cordova", just the disambiguation tag. From WP:PLACEDAB, we first study the necessity of a disambiguation tag. It leads us to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, where we read:

  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
  • A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

This leaves some room for debate, but I would say that Spanish Córdoba does not meet these two conditions to be primary for the term (if any editor believes that Spansish Córdoba is the primary term, please, argue it here). Therefore, if we accept the fact that Spanish Córdoba is not primary for the term, we need a disambiguation tag.

Going back to WP:PLACEDAB, we read:

The following general principles apply to such tags:[...]

  • Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie, if this is sufficient. However, when tags are required for places in Argentina (except province capitals that are named like the province), Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Nigeria, South Africa or the United States, use the name of the state, province, territory, prefecture, region (Italy only) or county (Ireland only), or department (France only) if the place lies within a single such entity.[...]
  • If using the country name would still lead to ambiguity, use the name of a smaller administrative division (such as a state or province) instead.

This, in my opinion, does not leave any room for debate. Spain does not appear in the list of exceptions against using the country as the disambiguation tag. And, since there is not other Córdoba in Spain that can be confused with the city in Andalusia, the country name does not lead to ambiguity. Therefore, the disambiguation tag should be "Spain", not "Andalusia". Again, if any editor believes the correct disambiguation tag should be "Andalusia", please, argue it here. Fleon11 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Córdoba, Andalusia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Córdoba, Andalusia. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Mezquita Cristo de la Luz

Under Main sights | Other religious structures there is an entry: "Mezquita Cristo de la Luz. A thousand year old mosque built in the Caliphate period." On a recent visit to Cordoba I could not find any such mosque and my enquiries drew a blank. There is a famous mosque with this unusual name in Toledo and I am fairly sure that it has been accidentally entered in the wrong city. Unless someone can prove be wrong, I propose to delete the entry. DavidGSDavies (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Not having received any response to this comment, I am now deleting "Mezquita Cristo de la Luz".DavidGSDavies (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Local Goberment

I just change the number of member of local goberment. It was for period of 2011-15. I just change the number and party at 205 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.166.168.170 (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleaned up

The current version of this article is, quite frankly, a huge mess. The style and content of the text itself is incoherent and all over the place. Lots of sentences are in scare quotes, and appear to be directly copied from academic books. The section dealing with the history of Córdoba is unclear, lacks context, and lacks a readable narrative (it jumps from subject to subject, in an unexpected and jarring manner). In some cases, the article is tantalizingly vague, and in other cases the information presented is overly specific and trivial (do we really need to list the names of all the mills?). Seeing as I know next to nothing about Córdoba, I am not capable of improving this article to a satisfactory level, so I hope somebody could help clean up this mess. Duivelwaan (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Córdoba, Spain. 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) 10:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Dhimmitude

Historiography of the Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula is clouded by black-and-white thinking inspired by recent events. Some use it to push an idea of a Coca-Cola advert utopia of all colours and creeds, and some counterjihadists paint a picture of unrepenting brutality, both of which are caricatures that do not capture the true complexity of human nature.

The BBC sum it up best in the reference: "Although Christians and Jews lived under restrictions, for much of the time the three groups managed to get along together, and to some extent, to benefit from the presence of each other". It is undeniable that there existed the status of dhimmi, which was applied on basis of religion and provided the Christian and Jew with fewer rights than the Muslim. Whether or not this was a "better" second-class status than being a Catholic in 1700s England or a black person in 1970s South Africa is irrelevant, it was second-class full stop.

Really an article about an extant city should not need this detail in the lead, but it is necessary to balance either one-sided fantasy about the subject. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Córdoba, Spain. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Major edit to Main Sights section

I have renamed the section Architecture and subdivided it by era. Many of the sections contain already existing text that needs citation. Cordoba is a city rich in culture and architecture, this section deserves a little expansion as well. The sections that I added new information and citations for are the Great Mosque of Cordoba and the Minaret of San Juan. I also added a new picture of the mosque and changed the name and order of a few other headings. Oh, and I removed dead links in the new sections. Cattbrown86 (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Intro

The lead section of this article is not the place to put Muslim rule on trial. A history rundown is good, especially since it gives background on the architecture, but going into the historical status of Muslims vs non-Muslims is unwarranted here because it isn't particular to Córdoba. (For the record, the "people being forced to convert" thing is unverifiable at best.[1]) Info in the intro should also be well sourced and reflect the article. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Thomas F. Glick (2005). Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages. BRILL. pp. 21–24. ISBN 90-04-14771-3.

{{copyvio}} in Architecture section

An user with the IP 67.167.8.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently placed {{copyvio}} within the intro to the Architecture section. As no specific rationale or plagiarized source was identified, I have reached out to this user for clarification. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"Have had enough of subsection after subsection with many paragrpahs without a since stated source. Whether the materials in in or out of copyright, this is plagiarism. You cannot take all this material, much of it purported to be factual, without stating sources. This is patently dishonest—see Charles Lipson's "Doing Honest Work in College", UChicago Press.—and this plagiarised appropriation is rampant here". This is the explanation the user noted when he made the edit itself. Seems the issue is not one of copyright, but rather citations/original research. The user seems not to know the difference between those and copyright issues. 213.220.126.120 (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Bethaniehart.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hidden text in history section

Hi Asqueladd, I noticed while editing now that there are multiple instances of "invisible" text in the history section. I think most of them come from your edits last summer ([1], [2]). Is there a reason for this or was it unintended? If they were obscured because they contain dubious or unsourced details, we should just remove them. In some cases you seem to have added citations with them, so if those details are verified(?) we should simply make them visible. Thanks for any help or clarification, R Prazeres (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. @R Prazeres: Regarding the first edit, an attempt to make history less about names of great people. And the second bit also that concern I think (no need to make the local history a chronicle of individual people: "In 1002 Al-Mansur was returning to Córdoba from an expedition in the area of Rioja when he died. His death was the beginning of the end of Córdoba. Abd al-Malik al-Muzaffar, al-Mansur's older son, succeeded to his father’s authority, but he died in 1008, possibly assassinated. Sanchuelo, Abd al-Malik’s younger brother succeeded him. While Sanchuelo was away fighting Alfonso V of Leon" (this bit needs trim and it even reads even somewhat soapy). I thus attempted to frame the overthrow of the dynasty with sources and in a more simplified way. Also removed a non-sensical scare quote (In 1012 the Berbers "sacked Cardova") I see. So all in all, besides improving on sourcing and other content changes, there is indeed an (deliberate) underlying intention on trying to display the key points of regime change without derailing too much on individual names, if that's what you are asking. PS: And to be frank, the following section High and Late Middle Ages (which I also heavily edited, not to say largely created) is way less successful on that (I'll take that beating because it is quite poor).--Asqueladd (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I understand, thanks, and I don't disagree given that these kind of details can be looked up in other articles. My question then is simply: can we remove some of this hidden material altogether then? It just makes things a little messy when editing if the text alternates between visible and invisible information, and it may make editors like me wonder what the hidden content is there for. If it's not pertinent enough to be in this article, my opinion is that we can do without it. Alternatively, some of the sourced material could be placed in a footnote instead, which allows for readers to see it if they want without derailing the main narrative. Does that sound appropriate to you? R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, of course. We can just leave a diff here to an old version, mentioning that in an effort to reduce name-dropping some content was trimmed from the article, and be done with it (details are expected to be found at Fitna of al-Andalus). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! And thank you for your improvements to this and other articles; I saw the clean-up you did here and it was much-needed. R Prazeres (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I've removed the invisible text. I don't think any of it was essential. Editors can check what was removed using this edit preview or comparing with preceding versions. Of the hidden text, I only left the name "Abd al-Malik" (the last ruler of the first Taifa) because this was short enough that removing it didn't make a difference. For the page numbers, I left the page range in the citation but added the specific page number with the "rp" template for now, so that all citation details are visible. R Prazeres (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adbarker.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jaridgway.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Image

The current image ([3]) is a generic aerial view of Cordoba where you can barely recognize or distinguish anything of the city. Since Cordoba is quite a touristic city, I propose using a collage image with the different points of interest. This one is used in many Wikipedian articles:[4]

This proposition, with their respective image descriptions, is consistent with the infobox image of other touristic cities articles in the Andalusian region such as Seville, Granada, Malaga, as well as a multitude of other articles from different cities around the world, for example: Lyon, Bologna, Ghent, Patras, Cologne, Casablanca, Leeds, Porto, Kraków, Graz, Zürich, Valencia, Thessaloniki and million other articles. Venezia Friulano (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

To begin with, you can recognize the city, the river, and the sierra at the background, basically the elements underpinning the geographical location and urban fabric of the city (and the reason why people decided to inhabit that specific point of the Iberian Peninsula). In addition you can also distinguish many specific features of the city centre, including the bridge and the great mosque, to name a few, as you are keen on tourism landmarks. All in one picture which may illustrate the mode of living and urban layout of close to (or even over) half (the) the inhabitants of the municipality. Not too shabby.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings about either option, but I will note that we don't often have a similar wide-view image of the city in articles, so the current image seems convenient for a lead image. I would also caution against confusing the purpose of Wikipedia with that of a tourism website; the fact that a city is "touristic" isn't really relevant to the issue either way, in my opinion. If we were to put a collage, I would recommend making something new (using the multiple image template or equivalent), rather than the one suggested above ([5]). The latter is pretty crowded (even a little on the lower-resolution side for my taste), which makes it less practical for writing a caption identifying each of the component images. Higher-quality city articles tend to have around 6 images in the infobox, not much more, sometimes less (e.g. Boston, Manchester, Kigali). As a compromise, a collage could include the aerial view as a first image (similar to how the Barcelona, Madrid, and other city articles have skyline images). R Prazeres (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with your proposal. Fair enough. Venezia Friulano (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
There's no hurry, but we seem to have been forgotten this thread; Asqueladd, what do you think of having a photo montage with the aerial image prominently featured in it? If I didn't misinterpret Venezia Friulano's response, they seem to favour that. R Prazeres (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
If introducing a collage, I would add one additional row of pics (two at most). I would also favour urban spaces rather than blunt building façades without context.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Following examples of other high-quality articles, a collage should probably have a mix of major landmarks and urban scenes, identified by caption for context. If doing this, I'd suggest having maybe 5 pics in total (so adding two rows of two below the current image), which makes it easier to have a representative mix. R Prazeres (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed collage, I will do it soon. Venezia Friulano (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of name

Not sure why Britannica notes "Cordova" as "conventional", but a quick search of published sources makes it obvious that this spelling is rarely used nowadays in English (ngram seems to confirm it though it's an awkward search to specify). "Cordova" mostly shows up in much older publications whenever I've researched this topic. I will revise the lead's wording to reflect that, but not sure that the citation to Britannica should be kept in this case. Please discuss here as needed. R Prazeres (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Córdoba,_Spain/Archive_1&oldid=1224710004"