This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: African / European / Spanish / Medieval / Early Muslim C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  African military history task force European military history task force Spanish military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600) Spain Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Catalonia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catalonia and Catalonia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CataloniaWikipedia:WikiProject CataloniaTemplate:WikiProject CataloniaCatalonia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Catalan-speaking countries Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Morocco Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Help expand the project: You can help! يمكنكم أن تساهموا Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mounir Charïbi Assess : Rate the Unassessed Morocco articles and Unknown-importance Morocco-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to articles in Category:Morocco articles missing geocoordinate data Photo : See requested photographs in Morocco Stubs : Morocco stubs Other : Translate from Arabic: Sellam Ameziane, Mrebih Rebbu Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It seems odd to me to call this raid an "Almoravid victory". I've looked at all the sources in the article (except one I couldn't access) and none mentions an Almoravid victory. However, I have found sources^[1] that say that in that battle, which occurred 20 days after the siege began, the Almoravids were defeated and expelled (there are more sources that say they could not take the city). I don't doubt that this raid helped them reconquer the Balearic Islands, but I don't believe it was an Almoravid victory. Perhaps we could add "Catalan victory" (or "inconclusive" if there were also sources that mention an Almoravid success) and "See aftermath" below, where the full result would be explained. RobertJohnson35 – talk 23:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almoravid expedition to Catalonia (1114) says as much. I've amended the article. Srnec (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 I did not find any source that mentions that it was a Catalan victory, so you should bring sources for that, Therefore, I hope you will be patient and discuss the topic before editing the article.Andoria225 (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 According to the book Yihad y Reconquista: Guerra en Aragón, Navarra y Cataluña, siglos XI-XII (in Derta Ferro Ediciones.[1] This campaign completely destroyed the suburbs of Barcelona and Catalonia, and the Catalan forces were unable to stop this attack. This is a secondary source that is more recent than the source you are talking about, The attack on the Crusaders in the Balearic Islands had such an impact that only a few months had passed since Ramon Berenguer returned to Barcelona and the islands fell into the hands of the Almoravids, Andoria225 (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are in the first comment. If you can't find them, here they are:

• The Scripting of Domination in Medieval Catalonia: An Anthropological View. Carolina Academic Press. 2008. ISBN 978-1-59460-486-7.
• Historia de España: De los orígenes a la baja Edad Media. Revista de Occidente. 1955.
• Altamira, Rafael (1900). Historia de la civilización española.
• The Muslim Diaspora (Volume 1, 570-1500): A Comprehensive Chronology of the Spread of Islam in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. McFarland. 7 May 2015. ISBN 978-1-4766-0888-4.

I read the source you mentioned above and it doesn't say that the Catalan forces were unable to stop this attack, although it does say that [The Almoravids] completely destroyed the suburbs of Barcelona, but this does not contradict that the Almoravids were defeated and expelled. Again, I propose adding "See aftermath" below "Catalan victory" where the entire result is explained. Also, my sources are not old enough to apply WP:AGEMATTERS. RobertJohnson35 – talk 13:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 I advise you to re-read the text carefully because these words are written clearly. I have provided a source that mentions the victory of the Almoravids in this campaign, I wanted to add that the Almoravids returned to their lands on their own and were not "expelled" according to Abdullah Enan [2]Andoria225 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you to give me the full quotation because I've read the text three times and it does not mention either an Almoravid victory or a Catalan victory. Meanwhile, I've found seven other sources that mention a Catalan victory/expulsion of the Almoravids:

• Català i Roca, Pere (1967). eLS Castells catalans. R. Dalmau. p. 541. ISBN 978-84-232-0289-8.
• Jaag, Ares Van (29 June 2015). Història i Llegenda Catalana. Volum I: Editorial Alvi Books. Editorial Alvi Books. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-5147-4691-2.
• Barton, Thomas W. (15 June 2019). Victory's Shadow: Conquest and Governance in Medieval Catalonia. Cornell University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-1-5017-3618-6.
• Vilá, Jacinto Bosch; López, Emilio Molina (1998). Los almorávides. Universidad de Granada. p. 191. ISBN 978-84-338-2451-6.
• "Masacre de Almorávides cerca de Castelldefels – Historia de Barcelona". 29 April 2011.
• The Chronicle of Bernat Desclot [es] mentions an Almoravid defeat near Castelldefels in 1115, after that siege (full text here^[2]).
• Manjunath.R (3 July 2021). Timelines of Nearly Everything. p. 1709.

By the way, I just realized that one source in the article says that they were forced to lift the siege because of the arrival of Ramon Berenguer III:

• Kennedy, Hugh (1996). Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus. Routledge. ISBN 978-1317870418.

With this, there are at least 12 sources that speak of a Catalan victory/expulsion of the Almoravids. I think these are enough sources to make changes to the article and change that "Almoravid victory".

Your second source does not mention that the Almoravids left on their own. "The Almoravids then retreated to their lands" could be due to a possible defeat, perhaps not, but it does not speak of an Almoravid victory and should not be cited in the result. RobertJohnson35 – talk 15:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 Your sources are nothing more than a copy and paste of the sources that actually exist in the article, + you literally brought a book with comics that are not even suitable to be a source, in short you did not provide anything new that might have an impact on the article, As for the site that mentions the "massacre of the Almoravids", it lacks a reliable secondary source and cannot be trusted.Andoria225 (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two sources that were already in the article, and I've already said that one of them was on the page. If you don't provide a source that actually says it was an Almoravid victory, I'll change the result. RobertJohnson35 – talk 16:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 The source that mentions the victory of the Almoravids is clear in the source that I put in the article.

Sāmarrāʼī, Khalīl Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ; Ṭāhā, ʻAbd al-Wāḥid Dhannūn; Maṭlūb, Nāṭiq Ṣāliḥ, eds. (2000). Tārīkh al-ʻArab wa-ḥadāratuhum fī al-Andalus (al-Ṭabʻah 1 ed.). Bayrūt: Dār al-Kitāb al-Jadīd al-Muttaḥīdah. ISBN 978-9959-29-015-1.[3] pag 260, So I don't see any reason to change the result. Andoria225 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 Unfortunately, the book is not available in full on Google Books, but you will find the full version on this site. [4] Andoria225 (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andoria225 I do see reasons to change the result: at least 12 sources say it was a Catalan victory and we have only found 1 that says otherwise. Please don't remove the dubious tag until the discussion is over. RobertJohnson35 – talk 17:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 There are no sources that explicitly say that it was a "Catalan victory" contrary to what I presented. In fact, there are two sources that talk about a Catalan defeat.

1.) Yihad y Reconquista: Guerra en Aragón, Navarra y Cataluña, siglos XI-XII, It is noteworthy that the Catalan forces were unable to repel the Almoravid attack.

2) Sāmarrāʼī, Khalīl Ibrāhīm Ṣāliḥ; Ṭāhā, ʻAbd al-Wāḥid Dhannūn; Maṭlūb, Nāṭiq Ṣāliḥ, eds. (2000). Tārīkh al-ʻArab wa-ḥadāratuhum fī al-Andalus (al-Ṭabʻah 1 ed.). Bayrūt: Dār al-Kitāb al-Jadīd al-Muttaḥīdah.

It is mentioned that it is a clear victory for Almoravids on page 260.

No other editor has questioned the fact that this raid was not an Almoravid victory, except for you, who are clearly Catalan. Andoria225 (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I've shown say it was a Catalan victory/Almoravid defeat/the Almoravids were expelled. I'm still waiting for the quote from the first book, I have read it several times and nowhere does it say that they were unable to expel the Almoravids. [...] except for you, who are clearly Catalan using a person's nationality as an argument isn't a very good idea, nor is saying No other editor has questioned the fact that this raid was not an Almoravid victory, except for you since the article was written very recently and people might not have noticed. Please, provide sources instead of using arguments that have nothing to do with this. RobertJohnson35 – talk 23:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 I have seen all the sources you sent, most of which are inaccessible, and another that talks about the “Massacre of almoravids” without relying on a secondary source to support it, and another book you sent that is made up of comics, All these pseudo-sources that you sent do not mention any “Catalan victory” explicitly, except for one source. In a book Yihad y Reconquista: Guerra en Aragón, Navarra y Cataluña, siglos XI-XII It is explicitly stated in the text, ""La operación, imparable esta vez para las tropas catalanas, llegó hasta las puertas de Barcelona"" Meaning that the Catalan forces could not stop the attack that reached Barcelona. As for my comment about you being Catalan, this was just a question and not an accusation, because many editors entered the article and none of them doubted that this raid was a Almoravid victory. “This is just a question.” Andoria225 (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources are inaccessible, but if you ask me for the quote in a specific book, I can give it to you. Anyway, this shouldn't be relevant per WP:PAYWALL. The Masacre de Almorávides cerca de Castelldefels is based on chronicles written at the time. The operation, unstoppable this time for the Catalan troops, reached the gates of Barcelona refers to before they besieged Barcelona, ​​not after the 20-day siege, when that battle took place. I don't know how [...] you, who are clearly Catalan can be a question.

I think we are wasting our time, you can either look for more sources or we can just end the discussion here and I'll make the necessary changes to the page. RobertJohnson35 – talk 00:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 The only one wasting time on obvious topics is you, I've told you time and time again that sources are unreliable.

1) Your sources are inaccessible and there are no citations.

2) Source from unreliable sites

3) Your reliance on silly comics as a source Andoria225 (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andoria225 There is only one comic, there are still 11 other sources while you only have 1. Again, if you can't access a source, ask me for the quote but that doesn't make it unreliable (WP:PAYWALL). RobertJohnson35 – talk 00:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a quotation from the Rawd al-Qirtas. It is my own translation from the Spanish translation. Please vet it. I think it is wrong to say Ibn Radmir, which is Alfonso the Battler (i.e., Alfonso ibn Sancho ibn Ramiro). I think it is probably best to leave the infobox result field blank. Raids do not always have clear winners and losers (other than the Catalan orchards). Srnec (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec I mentioned two sources that say that this is a victory for the Almoravids. The first, which is the source that says literally that this is a victory for the Almoravids, The second is a Spanish source that says verbatim that the Catalan forces were unable to stop the attack and also mentions that the suburbs of Barcelona were completely destroyed. So you can compare my sources with RobertJohnson35, who relies mainly on inaccessible sources and also comics he brought as sources. Andoria225 (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just because you can't access the sources doesn't mean I can't cite them WP:PAYWALL, I've already told you that if you want a quote from a specific book, I can give it to you. If you don't like the comic, you have 11 other sources. That "Spanish" source you're talking about says the Catalans weren't able to stop them until they reached Barcelona, ​​but it doesn't mention what happened afterward, which is the point of this discussion. I think this is getting too repetitive. I don't think it's a bad idea to do what Srnec said, although I'd prefer to ask for a third opinion. RobertJohnson35 – talk 10:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 I told you repeatedly that your sources do not mention the raid at all, and I have seen it in full, in addition to the fact that it is not possible to access it. I said that you have quotes that you have not brought yet, and I demand them from you, The secondary source that I brought says that the Catalans were unable to repel the attack, and this is related to the campaign itself. If it was true that Ramon Berenguer defeated the Almoravids, he would have mentioned that as well, But what actually happened after Ramon Berenguer's return to Barcelona were only military skirmishes without a clear victor, according to Abdullah Annan, and this does not affect the outcome of the raid in general that brought destruction to Barcelona.

As for the result, there is a source that states literally that it was a victory for the Almoravids. Andoria225 (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the quotes:

1. The Scripting of Domination in Medieval Catalonia: An Anthropological View. Carolina Academic Press. 2008. ISBN 978-1-59460-486-7. The North Africans raided into Catalonia , attacking Barcelona in 1114-1115 , but they were repelled in a ferocious series of battles [...]
2. Historia de España: De los orígenes a la baja Edad Media (in Spanish). Revista de Occidente. 1955. [...] quiso vengar la muerte de su antecesor en el Congost de Martorell, y asedió Barcelona, donde fué derrotado y obligado a retirarse por el conde barcelonés.
3. Altamira, Rafael (1900). Historia de la civilización española (in Spanish). [...] invadieron por dos veces el territorio, llegando á sitiar á Barcelona; pero fueron derrotados en Martorell (1114) y en el llano de aquella ciudad (1115).
4. The Muslim Diaspora (Volume 1, 570-1500): A Comprehensive Chronology of the Spread of Islam in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. McFarland. 7 May 2015. ISBN 978-1-4766-0888-4. The Almoravids unsuccessfully besieged Barcelona.
5. Català i Roca, Pere (1967). eLS Castells catalans (in Catalan). R. Dalmau. p. 541. ISBN 978-84-232-0289-8. [...] expedició almoràvit rebutjada, el 1115, al pla de Barcelona.
6. Jaag, Ares Van (29 June 2015). Història i Llegenda Catalana. Volum I: Editorial Alvi Books. Editorial Alvi Books. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-5147-4691-2. En tornar de les illes va derrotar als Almoràvits que havien tornat a assetgar Barcelona (1115)
7. Barton, Thomas W. (15 June 2019). Victory's Shadow: Conquest and Governance in Medieval Catalonia. Cornell University Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-1-5017-3618-6. [...] Almoravid walī of Zaragoza launched a costly and unsuccessful campaign directed at Barcelona in 1115 [...]
8. Vilá, Jacinto Bosch; López, Emilio Molina (1998). Los almorávides. Universidad de Granada. p. 190-191. ISBN 978-84-338-2451-6. Ali deseaba, seguramente, resarcirse de lo ocurrido en el Congost de Martorell y, por orden suva, Ibn Tifilwit reunió un ejército en Valencia y tomó el camino del litoral. Saqueando y devastando cuanto halló a su paso, siguió hasta Barcelona, ciudad a la que puso sitio. Durante veinte días los almorávides estuvieron frente a ella intentando tal vez algún asalto, pero sin obtener resultado. Ramón Berenguer, al volver de Mallorca, consiguió que abandonaran el asedio y, tras un duro combate, obligó a los hombres de Ibn Tifilwit a retirarse. Estos hechos tuvieron lugar a fines de abril o primeros de mayo de 1115 (this source is used in the article)
9. Chronicle of Bernat Desclot [es] Ab tant lo comte se recolli ab sos cavallers e ab sa gent; e feren vela; e anaren tant que prengueren terra entr'el cap de Lobregat e el castell de Fels. E devallaren en terra, e ells e llurs cavalls. E quant los Serrayns que tenien assetiada la ciutat de Barcelona saberen quel comte havia presa terra e que venie, llevaren llurs tendes e començaren de anar vers Martorell. E lo comte sabe quels Serrayns s'en anaven cuytats, tant que fo abans a Martorell; quels Serrayns, qui eren sens nombre, nos pogueren guardar de la ost del comte quils era d'avant, ne les gents de la ciutat quils donavan de tras. E axi moriren n'i tants aquella hora, que l'aygua de Lobregat n'era tota vermella fins a la mar. E puix lo comte vench s'en a la ciutat de Barcelona, e ordena sos fets, e tornarsen. Aparellava de anar a Mallorques, missatge li vench de Mallorques: quels Genovesos havien desemparada la terra de Mallorques e quels Serrayns la havien cobrada. Per que lo comte ne fon molt irat; mas no y poch als fer.
10. Manjunath.R (3 July 2021). Timelines of Nearly Everything. p. 1709. 1115 - The new Almoravid governor of Zaragoza, Abu Bakr ibn Ibrahim ibn Tifilwit, lays siege to Barcelona for 20 days. The Almoravids withdraw when Count Ramon Berengar III returns from Majorca.
11. Kennedy, Hugh (1996). Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus. Routledge. ISBN 978-1317870418. [...] Abū Bakr b. Ibrahim b. Tifilwīt, laid siege to Barcelona for twenty days before being forced to abandon it with the return of Count Ramon Berengar III from Majorca.

If you continue to say that the sources do not mention the raid or if you continue to repeat the same things I have already answered, I will be forced to ask for a third opinion. RobertJohnson35 – talk 11:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35

1). The book "The Scripting of Domination in Medieval Catalonia: An Anthropological View"

It is not mentioned exactly ""The North Africans raided into Catalonia , attacking Barcelona in 1114-1115 , but they were repelled in a ferocious series of battles"" I don't know where you got this text that is not in the book at all.

2). Regarding the second source you provided ""Historia de España: De los orígenes a la baja Edad Media"" Just search for the quote you provided and it doesn't mention that the quote goes back to this specific source, so I want you to tell me where you got these quotes from so we can verify them.

3). The source you brought is the one named ""The Muslim Diaspora (Volume 1, 570-1500): A Comprehensive Chronology of the Spread of Islam in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas"" He's talking about the 1114 campaign and has nothing to do with the 1115 Barcelona raid. You're bringing up trivial sources that you haven't even read.

4). In the book ""eLS Castells catalans"" The total text of "The Almoravid attack was repelled" is not mentioned because it is a group of scattered words on the page that are not related to each other. "I still ask you from whom did you get these quotes?"

5). And for the second time you are displaying the comic book ""Història i Llegenda Catalana. Volum I: Editorial Alvi Books"" Where did you get these ""Kids"" comics?

6). It can be said that the book Victory's Shadow: Conquest and Governance in Medieval Catalonia"" It is the only source that proves the opposite of my sources, but it is not sufficient.

7). According to the book ""Vilá, Jacinto Bosch; López, Emilio Molina (1998). Los almorávides"" What is actually in the article is that it mentions that when Ramon Berenguer returned from Majorca, he forced the Almoravids to lift the siege, and it does not mention that he defeated them or that he expelled them, It does not indicate any defeat of the Almoravid forces.

8). book ""Chronicle of Bernat Desclot"" It is a primary source taken from other primary sources and cannot be relied upon as a reliable source.

9). Book “Manjunath.R” (3 July 2021). "Timelines of Nearly Everything" It is mentioned that "the Almoravids withdrew after the return of Ramon Berenguer" and that it was not an expulsion, and this is what agrees with Abdullah Enan, and I told you about that before.

10). The book "Kennedy, Hugh (1996)" says the same thing as the previous source, that the Almoravids withdrew after the return of Ramon Berenguer, So far, you haven't brought at least two sources saying "a Catalan victory" makes us think about changing the result Andoria225 (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andoria225 At this point I just think it would be a better idea to just put "See aftermath" instead of putting "X victory" RobertJohnson35 – talk 12:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 Srnec changed the entire article and removed the “Aftermath” so I think it would be better to say the victory of the Almoravids because there is a source that mentions this verbatim and it cannot be ignored, I can say I would have agreed with you if there wasn't a source that explicitly stated the result. Andoria225 (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Los Almoravides mentions the defeat of the Almoravids and it's cited in the article RobertJohnson35 – talk 14:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's been a confusion.

When you enter a book and can only see a small portion of the page, it's because they don't have a preview, but rather a Snippet view. That means you won't be able to see the entire page, so you probably can't read the quote I gave to you. However, if you search for the quote in Google Books, the text will appear before entering the book (if you enter the book you will just see the snippet view), although I recommend you only search for a small part of the quote because otherwise it won't appear. There is a book that cannot be accessed directly through Google Books (Los Almorávides, which also says they were defeated, I've given you the quote and it's literally in the book), but I found the complete book on another page. [5]

Having said that, are you now okay with putting "See aftermath" and creating that section with the full results (without saying x victory)? RobertJohnson35 – talk 14:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 I don't know if you read my reply but the book "Vilá, Jacinto Bosch; López, Emilio Molina (1998)" only mentions that he forced the Almoravids to lift the siege and not that they were "expelled" or "defeated" as you are trying to portray to us, Secondly, the link to the book you sent me is not available.

As for the result, all your sources are inaccessible books, others you have cited that are not in the book, and another book is based on children’s picture stories.

So, without wasting time on the obvious, the result will remain the same, especially since there is a source that mentions “the victory of the Almoravids.” Andoria225 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't acces the book Los almorávides because you need to log in in the page to read it (and it says that the Almoravids were defeated^[3]). I've told you several times that it's not mandatory to make the sources accessible (WP:PAYWALL) and yet I've given you the full quotes and told you how to find them on the books. This is getting very repetitive and long, I've requested a third opinion. I insist, the result should be "See aftermath" and a link to that section since, as Srnec said, a raid does not have to have a winner. RobertJohnson35 – talk 15:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 I saw the quote and there is no reference to the "defeat of the Almoravids". Andoria225 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35 Please Stop editing the article, there are no proven sources that say a Catalan victory and all the sources you brought are rejected. If you continue in the same manner, you will be reported. Andoria225 (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, report me. The discussion isn't over yet, as we still need the third opinion which I already requested. Don't remove the tag or you will be the one who will be blocked. RobertJohnson35 – talk 15:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"[...] tras un duro combate, obligó a los hombres de Ibn Tifilwit a retirarse. [...] Después de esta expedición, poco afortunada, [...]"

"After a fierce battle, he forced Ibn Tifilwit's men to retreat. [...] After this unfortunate expedition, [...]"

Anyways I'll just wait for the third opinion. RobertJohnson35 – talk 15:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertJohnson35: Since I've already chimed in, you can't get a third opinion. You'll need to go thru RFC. That said, my opinion is in agreement with yours as regards the sources, but I think the result field is probably best left blank (probably should be the default for 'raids'). Srnec (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, alright, I'll make an RFC. Thanks for letting me know. RobertJohnson35 – talk 16:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike If you think he wrote the comics and unavailable sources in addition to sources from sites that are not even sources, if you think all of this needs discussion, then you should go back and read the Wikipedia rules, Because these trivialities do not need discussion and have been answered. Andoria225 (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What should be the result in the infobox for this raid? (see previous discussion)

1. Catalan victory
2. Almoravid victory
3. Inconclusive / or See aftermath (A new section would be created in the article)
4. Leave it blank

RobertJohnson35 – talk 17:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC); edited 21:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer 1, but 4 is okay. As an outsider reading the above discussion, it is pretty clear that the other user was stonewalling, almost to an "I can't hear you" level. Toadspike [Talk] 18:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the sources provided above, 2 or 3 would be a serious misrepresentation. Toadspike [Talk] 18:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Number 2 is better, as there is a reliable secondary source that states verbatim that it is “a victory for Almoravids.” in ""Tārīkh al-ʻArab wa-ḥadāratuhum fī al-Andalus"" pag 260 Andoria225 (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One source in isolation isn't meaningful for this kind of analysis. What matters is the overall agreement between the available reliable sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢   20:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SMcCandlish There is another secondary source ""Yihad y Reconquista: Guerra en Aragón, Navarra y Cataluña, siglos XI-XII,"" It is noteworthy that the Catalan forces were unable to repel the attack, and this is the second source that speaks of the Almoravids’ victory. [6] Andoria225 (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've answered this before, it only mentions that the Catalans couldn't stop the Almoravid forces until they reached Barcelona, ​​it doesn't say anything about a victory or what happened after/during the siege. RobertJohnson35 – talk 21:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, failure to repel an attacker's early advances hardly equates to the attacker having a victory in the entire campaign. But so far I don't see any sourcing that supports option 1 above, either, so it seems to me that 4. leave it blank is the only solution, pending a bunch more sources agreeing, in the aggregate, on an outcome. Option 3 likely isn't possible without such additional source material either. I don't think I have further input to give, since I'm not competent in the languages the sources are usually written in (and relying on machine translation often leads to farcical errors).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢   21:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I provided sources about the first option on the other discussion although not all explicitly say it was a Catalan victory. Both options, 1 and 3, seem fine to me. RobertJohnson35 – talk 21:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• i prefer the option 2 due to the presented sources that made convinced Xdnox (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, a person whose last edit was 1 year ago and has only 5. Where did you find this RFC/discussion? RobertJohnson35 – talk 20:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey man , no need to get suspicious, I am not very active , but I just came back to Wikipedia again and I love searching and reading about berber history and overall the history of the Maghreb especially conflicts and battles so yeah that's it Xdnox (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3: "Inconclusive/See aftermath (A new section would be created in the article)" is the ideal consensus option. The "See aftermath" section sets out the different perspectives presented by the sources and allows readers to draw their own conclusions rather than accept the spoon-fed ideological viewpoint, as is so often the case in history ("For every six experts who agree on something, I can find another half-dozen who agree to the contrary"). WP:NPOV is a fundamental English Wikipedia policy. BTW, "leaving it blank" is simply leaving the door open to endless edit-warring by future readers/users who have not read or participated in this RfC. --Technopat (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless we have sources that explicitly say the raid was "inconclusive", using that word in the infobox is misleading. I am okay with a link to a new aftermath section or listing no result in the infobox, but I am not okay with writing something that thus far no source has said. Toadspike [Talk] 21:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There has been some confusion about that option. I was referring to one of the two options: either "Inconclusive" and "See Aftermath" or "See Aftermath" only. I should have listed the two options separately. RobertJohnson35 – talk 21:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are no sources that mention the raid as "indecisive" and the same goes for a "Catalan victory". There is only one source that says the Almoravids were expelled in exchange for two sources that mention an "Almoravid victory". Andoria225 (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How is that related to my comment? RobertJohnson35 – talk 22:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that there are no sources that specifically use the term "indecisive" is not relevant. What is being discussed is that there are different sources reaching different "conclusions", whixh leads to the need for consensus. --Technopat (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So far, no reliable secondary sources have been presented that might lead us to different conclusions. Any editor can check the validity of the sources presented by RobertJohnson35 Andoria225 (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have checked the validity of a few RobertJohnson35's sources, enough to determine that the quotes he provided are accurate and there are, in fact, sources describing a Catalan victory/Almoravid defeat. Please stop arguing that the sources do not say what they say. Toadspike [Talk] 17:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We will analyze the reliability of the sources provided to us by RobertJohnson35.

  1). Jaag, Ares Van (29 June 2015). Història i Llegenda Catalana. Volum I: Editorial Alvi Books. Editorial Alvi Books. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-5147-4691-2. Robert Johnson35 relied on a comic book as a source, If you follow Wikipedia, you will know that this book is definitely rejected.

  2). Historia de España: De los orígenes a la baja Edad Media. Revista de Occidente. 1955. It is also based on a book that has nothing to do with the Barcelona raid and does not mention it, and this is an example of many other books that he claims to quote from.

  3). "Masacre de Almorávides cerca de Castelldefels – Historia de Barcelona". 29 April 2011. Robert Johnson35 brought an internet source that talks about the “Morabitoun massacre.” The source itself does not cite any books, making it an unreliable source.

  4). The Muslim Diaspora (Volume 1, 570-1500): A Comprehensive Chronology of the Spread of Islam in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. McFarland. 7 May 2015. ISBN 978-1-4766-0888-4. He also cited a book that mentions the failure of the Almoravids in the 1114 campaign, which has no relation to our topic Raid on Barcelona 1115, which shows us that Robert Johnson35 did not even read the source on which he relied.

  All these rejected sources are unreliable and are nothing more than trivial arguments to change the result, and in the end they do not all speak of any “Catalan victory.” Andoria225 (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andoria225 There are 8 other sources and the 2nd one does mention the raid. The 3rd one is based on the chronicle I mentioned before, that's why I didn't include it in the comment in which I put the quotes. RobertJohnson35 – talk 19:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your sources have been answered one by one in my previous lecture, As for the third source, it is based on a narration from a primary source. The primary source on which the site relies is not supported by other narratives. Andoria225 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (WP:ICANTHEARYOU). RobertJohnson35 – talk 21:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not my point of view, but rather ensuring the validity of the sources. I mean, your quote has no meaning, but rather applies to you, So read it again carefully. Andoria225 (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 4 say nothing there, mostly because there was not a specific objective or significant enough result to be clearly anything, and also per the infobox guidance “Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.” There seems just not enough records or notability to draw RS from, except I see the common situation that both sides claimed success. (And possibly both felt so, having different viewpoints, or possibly both just felt a need to say so.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2 I compared RobertJohnson35 sources with Andoria225 sources and I can say that Andoria sources were more convincing and clear on the issue of the result.

  Kozioğlu (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 4. Probably true in general, or at least a lot of the time, that raids do not have victors. Srnec (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Srnec In fact, the attacking party often wins raids. [7] Andoria225 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Grau Montserrat 1958 (see article), p. 237: Ibn Tifilwit "puso sitio a Barcelona en 1115, pero fué, asimismo, derrotado y obligado a retirarse." It was not unambiguously an Almoravid victory. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Srnec Is there a website or something like that where I can access the unavailable books, because there are many texts that mention the victory of the Almoravids in this campaign, but I cannot access the books Andoria225 (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]