Talk:Battle of al-Shihr (1531)

Hoax

@Kabz15 I'll try to make this as easy for you to understand as possible:

A) The Portuguese never attacked Ash-Shihr in 1530. If Turkish historians say they did they are based on no evidence.

B) The only time Manuel de Vasconcelos attacked Shihr was in 1532, and the Ottomans were defeated. This is attested by the historians João de Barros (1496-1570), Fernão Lopes de Castanheda (1500-1559), Gaspar Correia (1496-1563), all of whom are secondary sources, and navy officer Saturnino Monteiro who is tertiary.

The way it is the article is good for Articles for Deletion because it's a hoax.Wareno (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The attack did indeed happened, i'll quote from portuguese of the s. arabian coast by robert serjeant who was quoting from tarikh al shihri page 57:

[The Turks return to al-Shihr, but as it is the wrong monsoon (Azyab) for going on to India they are forced to remain there and abandon attempts to proceed for the moment. The Turks Lend the Sultan a hundred men to assist him in his wars in the upper Wadi Hadramawt.]

On Sunday night, 13th Rabïf II, Mustafa voyaged from the port of al-Shihr bound for India, for fear of the arrival of the Frank, but those he had sent with Sultan Badr remained, they and Safar Salman, in the camp (:mahattah) of the Sultan (in Wadi Hadramawt) .... On Thursday, 15th of the same month (Djumâdâ I), a grab of the Frank arrived, and, entering the port of al-Shihr, fell in with a number of vessels arrived from Diu. It wanted to seize what was in them, but Safar Salman and a party of Turks put out to sea in its direction. They made towards it, but when it saw them it turned tail. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, it’s very simple, WP:VERIFIABILITY is a non-negotiable policy. Seeing as this battle is supported by three in page references it is clear that this battle happened. An attack on Ash-Shihr happened in the year 1531 which is stated by this source. You can find the accessible version here the source mentions an attack on Ash-Shihr in 1531 with the same commander and strength mentioned in the article, no attack is mentioned in 1532 but the Portuguese were defeated again in 1539 in the same place. “If Turkish historians say they did they are based on no evidence.“ Dude, what are you talking about Yilmaz Oztuna is a Turkish historian who clearly mentions that the Portuguese were defeated at Ash-Shihr in 1531 and non English sources are allowed on wikipedia per WP:NOENG, furthermore how can you say that about Turkish historians and then cite Portuguese historians, make some sense here. Kabz15 (talk)

Hello @Wareno and Kabz15:, I'm unequipped to judge the sources, but this does not look like an intentional hoax or act of vandalism. If the sources seem unreliable, then something like Template:Verify sources is more appropriate. Burritok (talk)

Merge?

@Wareno and Onel5969: Frankly, Kabz15 is right on this one. Blanking and redirecting an article that survived two recent AFDs without discussion is bad practice. Since Ash-Shihr is on my watchlist, I noticed the merger but did not notice/recall the AFDs. I think the merge should be discussed before the redirect is restored. Myself, I've no real opinion. I've only verified that this event happened per RS and not looked deeper to see if there is enough to sustain a separate article. A separate consideration is that the merge as done gives outsized important to this event at Ash-Shihr. Srnec (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge. He isn't at all "right on this one": There wasn't any battle. No Portuguese sources record any battle on this city at this time, and all Muslim sources record is an "attempted battle" that almost took place but didn't even come to that. "Almost battle of Ash-Shihr" is not valid grounds for an article of its own, and the user has a history of creating article about trivial events. And @Srnec, as for bad practice, taking action to create further controversy when you've "no real opinion" and did not "looked deeper to see if there is enough to sustain a separate article" can hardly be considered opportune. Wareno (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I was not commenting on the merit of the article or correctness of the title, but on the propriety of blanking/redirecting. It is out of line to do that after two failed AFDs. Do you think Kabz15 could do that after his AFD inevitably fails? Srnec (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If the other article was as stupendously un-noteworthy as this one, he just might. Needlessly reviving controversies on subjects one has "no real opinion" on and "not looked deeper" however, seems to me far worse. Wareno (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Merge: Wareno first nominated this page for deletion due to it “being a hoax”, but after two nominations for deletion on non-Portuguese victory battle pages that did not go his way he persists on merging almost every battle between the Ottomans and Portuguese that does not say Portuguese victory. Clearly POV pushing and WP:JDLI. Kabz15 (talk)

Merge - clearly, there is no reason for numerous stub articles. WP is a reference source, to force folks to jump around from stub to stub is ridiculous. And it keeps being repeated that this "survived two recent AFDs", but I do not see any links to any AfD discussions, although I remembered that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ash-Shihr (2nd nomination) was referenced somewhere. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

As usual, the AFDs are linked at the top of this page. Srnec (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ash-Shihr which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)