Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almohad conquest of Evora (1191)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almohad conquest of Evora (1191)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Almohad conquest of Evora (1191) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason: This event never happened. Évora was captured by Portugal in 1165 and was never reconquered by the Muslims, see [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] All the sources I gave are reliable and modern. The user who created this article and a few other people have already debated with me regarding this issue on the talk page of this article and others, for example in the Siege of Silves (1191) and stopped answering my replies after failing to disprove my claims. I will be addressing the sources they provided for this page. The first two don't say anything about this event at all, they only refer to the Almohad campaign of 1191, with 0 mention of Évora. The third citation is simply stating what the chronicler "Ibn Abi Zar" wrote, which is a primary source, so if we follow WP:AGEMATTERS, it cannot be used. I don't really have an explanation for the fourth source, however it contradicts more modern sources, so once again we should resort to WP:AGEMATTERS. The fifth source is similar to the third one, it is simply stating what a chronicler wrote but this time it's a different one, someone by the name of "El Édris". The sixth source does not state anything about this event at all, seems to be a case of WP:OR. The seventh and last source is the exact same scenario as the fifth. It's simply stating what "El Édris" wrote, basically another case of WP:AGEMATTERS. Javext (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out another thing since I forgot about it. Even in the primary sources they only state that Évora and other cities were captured, maybe a case of sloppy writing or something like that. They give no detail about its conquest so even if it did happen, its just not enough to create a page. Javext (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i still wait for you answer i pinged you @Javext Tahanido (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond to your comment right here.
Your comment: "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"
First off, "El Édris" was mentioned in YOUR source not mine. He was most likely an Almohad chronicler, though what he was does not really matter since we all know his works are considered primary sources. Your sources where his name is in aren't just using him simply as a reference, but rather they literally say "según el Edris" which in English translates to "according to El Edris". This means that the authors of these sources are not analyzing the primary works and doing their own research, but rather they are simply stating what Édris said, therefore citing the primary source in question or the ones where he was mentioned are basically the same thing.
I didn't understand what you meant on your last phrase, what are you even trying to say?? Javext (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, let’s clear up this "El Idriss" mystery. I’m starting to wonder if you’ve discovered a secret Almohad chronicler that no historian knows about! Because, seriously, after asking about him seven times, you still haven’t told us who "El Idriss" is. I’ve checked all the sources—multiple times, mind you—and there’s no sign of an “El Idriss.” Are you sure you didn’t mix him up with someone? Maybe he’s a character from one of your dreams?
Let me help you out: the actual chroniclers from that period are Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Idhari, and Al-Bakri—you know, the ones with real historical credentials. If you’re going to claim "según El Idriss" in your sources, you’d better show us where exactly they say that. Otherwise, you’re just throwing around names like some kind of medieval fan-fiction writer. So until you can provide a single valid source mentioning this mystery man, I’ll stick to facts, thanks!
Secondly, even if this "Idriss" was cited, it wouldn’t change the fact that you clearly don’t know how secondary sources work. They’re used to analyze or build on primary sources, not create brand-new information. Historians aren’t just making things up—they rely on actual evidence. So, maybe learn how sources work before throwing random names around?
Lastly, I’ll admit, using your source was a mistake. yours just seem to come with imaginary chroniclers. Tahanido (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First off, personal attacks won't help your case, we are here to discuss about this page not to try to offend each other.
Now, I am amazed how you didn't even read your sources well enough to see where "El Édris" is mentioned, but no worries I can show you. First source where he is mentioned is in French and it states "suivant El Édris", page 153, line 10, see here Second and last, is in Spanish and it states "según El Edris", page 292 line 34, see here
"If you’re going to claim "según El Idriss" in your sources, you’d better show us where exactly they say that." What are you even saying? These are NOT my sources, these are literally yours.. I seriously do not want to be rude or anything but are you even paying attention, do you even know what we are talking about?
Second point. I clearly know how secondary sources work, hence why I am telling you that these sources you used are not preferred per wikipedia policy. The authors have done 0 work on the supposed conquest of Évora by the Almohads, all of them simply stated that, in english translation, "according to [Name of a chronicler (primary source)]" and then gave a name of a bunch of cities. The chroniclers were either "El Édris" as shown in the 2 sources I already gave earlier in this message, or "Ibn Abi Zar" as you can see here (your own source)
"I’ll admit, using your source was a mistake." Using my source, what do you mean???
Last point, EVEN if the almohad conquest of évora ever happen (which I strongly believe it didn't) you do NOT have enough information and detail to create a page about it. Everything you had is nothing that can't be gleaned from the article's title. Javext (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Javext: Just to note that everything after "If you’re going to claim" in the comment you responded to was AI generated. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me, I did find weird his comment but I thought that maybe he was using google translate so I didn't bother to point it out. Keep up the good work. Javext (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re confused: in this case, "El Idris" (or "El Édris") is not a historian. It’s referring to a city, not a chronicler. You're misinterpreting the context. When you see “según El Édris,” or "suivant el edriss" it’s referring to geographical data or a place, not someone giving a historical account. Tahanido (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how an author would say, in english translation, "According to (a city)" to state historical events.
It only makes sense that they are referring to a person. Javext (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created by sock, probably AI generated and there are reliable sources that say it was not captured.
RobertJohnson35 (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to be nonsense?
Absurdum4242

References

  1. ^ Barroca, Mário Jorge (2006). "Portugal". In Alan V. Murray (ed.). The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. pp. 979–984.
  2. ^ A history of portugal. CUP Archive. 1947-01-19. p. 103.
  3. ^ Grande enciclopédia portuguesa e brasileira: ilustrada com cêrca de 15.000 gravuras e 400 estampas a côres (in Portuguese). Editorial Enciclopédia. 1959.
  4. ^ Stanislawski, Dan (2014-11-11). The Individuality of Portugal: A Study in Historical-Political Geography. University of Texas Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-1-4773-0509-6.
  5. ^ Kaufmann, J. E.; Kaufmann, H. W. (2019-07-30). Castle to Fortress: Medieval to Post-Modern Fortifications in the Lands of the Former Roman Empire. Pen and Sword. ISBN 978-1-5267-3688-8.
  6. ^ Fiolhais, Carlos; Franco, José Eduardo; Paiva, José Pedro (2021-12-06). The Global History of Portugal: From Pre-History to the Modern World. Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1-80207-133-7.
  7. ^ Hyland, Paul (1996). Backwards Out of the Big World: A Voyage Into Portugal. HarperCollins. p. 171. ISBN 978-0-00-255556-2.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Almohad_conquest_of_Evora_(1191)&oldid=1246250428"