Talk:Almohad conquest of Evora (1191)

evora 1191

@Javext

First, many of the sources you have provided are written by Portuguese historians, which raises questions about their neutrality. It's important to consider bias, especially when using nationalistic sources.

Second, regarding the source by Ibn Abi Zar, it is a primary source, and as per WP:AGEMATTERS, primary sources can be considered reliable if used correctly. Dismissing it entirely goes against Wikipedia's guidelines on using such sources.

Third, if you carefully read the sources, you'll notice they clearly reference the event we're discussing.

Fourth, the sources I've included are secondary, which are preferred by Wikipedia standards for verifying historical facts.

Fifth, you have also ignored several other sources that confirm Évora was captured by the Almohads in 1191.

For example:

• Source 1
• source 2[1]
• Source 3

Sixth, I haven’t deleted any pages; my intention is to improve the text by adding accurate historical details.

Tahanido (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

First point- Only 3 of my sources were written by Portuguese historians and in NO way are they nationalists. They are all qualified historians/authors and you have 0 proof they are biased. Quit with the assumptions. Use real arguments.

Second- Per wikipedia policy secondary sources are always preferred, so if there's a dispute between a primary and secondary source, guess which one is preferred? The secondary. It's also funny that you accuse 3 of my sources of being "nationalistic sources" and that we should have "questions about their neutrality" but then you instantly restort to an Almohad chronicler to try to prove your point.

Third- If you had carefully read my explanation you would realise that I didn't say all of your "sources" didn't talk about the event we're discussing, but there as some who don't, The first, second and sixth sources do not talk about the event at all, i have read them.

Fourth- I have already assessed that in my Delete request, you didn't debunk anything.

Fifth- I didn't ignore anything, I explained every single source you had in the article. But taking a look at these three sources you presented now we can see that in the first and second sources (which are exactly the same), once again they are simply stating what "Él Edris" wrote, which is a primary source and finally the third source, the only part where Évora is mentioned is about the Almohad attack of 1190, which even this source says that the city was successfully defended.

Sixth- I didn't say you deleted any pages, I said that some of the pages that you created in the past have been deleted for various reasons.

Also, you ignored most of my sources.. Javext (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

First, regarding your point about nationalistic historians, how can you claim that a Portuguese historian wouldn't have a nationalist bias, especially when dealing with sensitive historical events like the Almohad conquests? Additionally, I have cited a Moroccan historian to balance perspectives. While secondary sources are preferred, primary sources are also accepted when used correctly, as per Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Second the first and second sources you mentioned speak about the campaign, not specifically the conquest of Évora. The sixth source, however, does discuss it directly. Furthermore, I’ve provided secondary sources that support the mention of Évora's conquest.

third, you mentioned “Idriss,” but who exactly is this? I reviewed the sources, and nothing has been fully debunked as you claimed.

fourth, just to clarify, I have not had any pages deleted

As a solution, I suggest we add a paragraph acknowledging that some sources do not mention the Almohad conquest of Évora in 1191. This would provide a more balanced view, addressing all perspectives on the event. Tahanido (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Instead of asking me how can I claim that a Portuguese historian doesnt have nationalist bias, ask yourself why would you assume that with 0 proof. You never cited any Moroccan historian. You cited two Almohad chroniclers claiming that they were reliable while my modern sources somehow have nationalistic bias. Once again, if there is a dispute between primary and secondary sources, the secondary sources are always preferred.

"Second the first and second sources you mentioned speak about the campaign, not specifically the conquest of Évora" Do you even know what were are talking about?? That's the point, they don't talk about the conquest of Évora.

The sixth source does not discuss it. Please quote it. I have read it and never found anything about a conquest of Évora in 1191.

"you mentioned “Idriss,” but who exactly is this? I reviewed the sources, and nothing has been fully debunked as you claimed." Bro thats actually so funny, you don't even know who the author is yet you want to claim its reliable. El Édris was an Almohad chronicler but per WP:AGEMATTERS he cannot be used if secondary sources state otherwise.

The only solution here is to delete this page as its a mix of WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:OR Javext (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You just invented the name "Idriss" as there was never a chronicler by that name in my knowledge. The narrator of these sources is not Idriss. Please clarify the actual author of the sources you’re referring to and address the correct information.

sorry the sixth source spoke about the large army that means no WP:OR Tahanido (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't create any name. You didn't understand anything I said. The book you gave was not written by "El Édris", it was a different author. However, he was using "El Édris", who was an Almohad chronicler, as a reference.

What do you mean in your last phrase? Javext (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

who is this elidriss Tahanido (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Javext Tahanido (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I literally explained who he was even though it's not even my source. you were the one using him as a reference yet you don't even know who he is? Please explain how you want me to take you seriously. Javext (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

you didnt explain who is this elidriss and my sources are considered secondary source even if they take a primary source on reference .when i used your source its only a fault sorry Tahanido (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Javext i still wait for your response Tahanido (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Javext: You cannot restore the PROD tag once it has been removed. You now have to go through AFD.

@Tahanido: Looking at the only good source cited for the actual conquest, García Sanjuán, I see that the primary source, once again, is the Rawd al-qirtas. I am becoming highly sceptical of this one. In any case, this article contains essentially no information on its supposed topic that cannot be contained in a single sentence at the article on the 1191–1192 campaign. I have therefore redirected it there for now. Srnec (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

we dont finished the disscusion why the page got a redirect? there are other source that spoke about the conquest let us finish it Tahanido (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but what is "PROD" and "AFD"? Javext (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:PROD (proposed deletion) and WP:AFD (articles nominated for deletion). There is also WP:RFD (redirects for discussion). I meant to say you cannot restore the PROD tag.
We can certainly continue to discuss this page here, but the page as it stood was mostly cruft. It told us nothing about the Almohad conquest of Evora in 1191 other than that it happened. And this is disputed. Srnec (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

All right, thanks for explaining everything. On a side note, I would like to ask if you can be a "third opinion" on a topic of a debate I am having. It's about the interpretation of a paragraph. Something very little and you won't need any prior knowledge, it will take you less than 5 minutes. If you are willing to do it I would be very grateful and I can send more details in your own talk page, if not then it's okay. Javext (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Srnec

don't redirect the page until we finished our debate please. Tahanido (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)