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 articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen 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.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen Hello! This sack happened in 1523 and the battles you mentioned happened many years after so, unless there were other confronts in this particular city before 1523, it was the first time and in the battle of 1548, which was a Portuguese victory, they didn't occupy it. [1]
Please provide a reliable secondary source stating the objective of the Portuguese was to occupy the city. Throughout the Indian Ocean campaigns you will find many cities that were sacked by the Portuguese but they didn't occupy them as it was not worth it, for example, Siege of Bintain, Siege of Johor (1587), Battle of Barawa, etc.. Javext (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any sources (that I am aware of) stating that the objective of the Portuguese was to sack the city, though.
Also, the Kathiri sultanate managed to fend off the Portuguese invaders, which means that they technically own the battle. Abo Yemen✉14:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The objective of the attack, according to the Portuguese commander, was to recover the body and properties of the Portuguese merchant that had been abducted, not to occupy the city.
I have doubts they were able to fend off the "Portuguese invaders" since the sources stating that "The Portuguese forces withdrew on the third day after the arrival of the Al-Mishqas army led by Atif bin Dahdah to support the people of the city of Al-Shihr" are quite sketchy from my point of view. For instance, it's all in arabic (which could mean nothing), the website is full of ads and in general doesn't look well or like a reliable source. If you could prove to me that those arabic sources are reliable, I would be thankful. All sources I have read that talk about this battle do not state that at all.
Also, those sources correctly state that the objective of the attack was to recover the properties of the portuguese merchant, yet they also say, "the Portuguese forces, who aimed to invade the city of Al-Shihr to cut off the resistance's supply lines in Aden". So, which version is it? Javext (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"according to the Portuguese commander, was to recover the body and properties of the Portuguese merchant that had been abducted, not to occupy the city."
According to the Prince of the Sultanate, there was no body nor any properties of any so called merchant. Plus i haven't seen any sources that say that the Portuguese managed to recover the so claimed body and properties of the so called merchant, which means that the portuguese have failed their mission.
Claiming that the given sources are unreliable because you do not understand them (when you could have right clicked and then click on "Translate to English") and because the website is full of ads is just a bad way to discredit a source. I have opened the Portuguese version of this article and tried looking for why did the portuguese retreat when they have apparently won the battle and started looting the city and there was nothing explaining that there.
"Also, those sources correctly state that the objective of the attack was to recover the properties of the portuguese merchant,"
How did you know that the sources "correctly state" the objective of the attack?
"yet they also say, 'the Portuguese forces, who aimed to invade the city of Al-Shihr to cut off the resistance's supply lines in Aden'. So, which version is it?"
@Javext mind continuing the discussion instead of trying to force the portuguese view on this article?
oh yeah and just so you know not only the portuguese have "reliable authors/historians". We have these too, it's just not all people in yemen have access to the internet (especially the older people) so basically you wont find much info about them online Abo Yemen✉08:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen No point in continuing the discussion. I ended up researching more and the Arabic sources are not reliable at all, the academic background of the authors are not even cited/known therefore they are not reliable and dont fall under WP:SOURCE. However the "Portuguese" sources you mentioned do fall under the reliable source category. The nationality of the sources mean little when they are reliable and written by good authors whose academic background is actually known, not some random person on an website. It's actually crazy how you are accusing my sources of not providing a neutral point of view because they were written by well known Portuguese historians but then you actively defend what some unknown Arab wrote. Please read this with an open head and lets come to an agreement Javext (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how about we do what wikipedia is supposed to do and use both the arabic and portuguese sources instead of just trying to push one side of the story? also please don't change the result, the portuguese failed their mission of trying to capture and colonize the city and instead retreated. They clearly did not win the battle here Abo Yemen✉17:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Portuguese sources and the Arabic do not share the same version of the story. I already proved how the Arabic ones (possibly from Yemen) are unreliable and cannot be used per Wikipedia policy, see WP:SOURCE. Literally some random person with an unknown academic background went on that website and created a page with 0 citation of other sources whatsoever, therefore it cannot be trusted to back up content in any wikipedia page.
" the portuguese failed their mission of trying to capture and colonize the city and instead retreated. They clearly did not win the battle here"
The Portuguese sacked the city, there was no attempt at capturing it and keeping it, but if you are still not convinced, here is a non-Portuguese source from Standford University: "For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage."[2]
Obviously they wont share the same version of the story. Wikipedia's job is to show all view points, even if they're just conspiracy theories.
anyways the version you have just added is fine though it makes it look like a stub. Ill remove the results parameter from the infobox since there is clearly no consensus on it
I even gave source from Standford University which is neither Arab nor Portuguese. Also Wikipedia job is to be as much accurate and reliable as possible, once again the Arab "sources" do not fit the WP:SOURCE category but the Portuguese ones do. There isn't a consensus between the two of us on the result because you can't accept that the Arab sources are not reliable, literally some unknown dude with no citation of their academic background went on that site and wrote whatever. That cannot be used for wikipedia as a reliable source.
It's pretty clear who won this battle among the reliable sources, whether written by Portuguese authors or from Standford University, at this point you are just disrupting the page.
Another source, written by an Indian historian, "However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'"[3]
You couldn't respond to my comment here because you were too busy on holiday, yet you kept making other edits on wikipedia and all of a sudden when I change the page again you aren't busy anymore.. Javext (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The portuguese clearly wanted to control the city because this wasn't the only battle of Ash-Shihr here; there is this one, the 1531 one, and the 1548 one. Now, I am going to admit that my knowledge about Portuguese history isn't really the best but what i know is that the Portuguese kingdom probably had colonial intentions looking at their previous battles, in fact, the portuguese controlled two other Yemeni costal cities before (Aden and Mokha). I don't see how them sacking the city and ending up with causalities too is a victory for them. It's more of a stalemate here, the kathiris got their city damaged and lost 7 leaders and their Amir while the portugues surrendered and ended up with losses too. I prefer keeping the infobox the same way it is right now.
Oh yeah and i have this page on my watchlist. Your edits reminded me to reply to your message that i've read while i was in the airport. Plus it isn't really your problem to worry about when i am busy or not Abo Yemen✉19:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on the result of this conflict or on the Portuguese intentions do not matter. Per Wikipedia guidelines, we have to follow what the reliable sources say about the conflict. There's no source that states the Portuguese wanted to keep the city or that they surrendered, on the contrary, they affirm that the Portuguese successfully sacked the city then left. It's pretty clear the result was a Portuguese victory, there's nothing more to debate.
I'm literally using reliable sources to prove my point whilst you are using your own version, see WP:NOTHERE. It's like talking to a wall, no offense. I hope you understand that. Javext (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-"However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'" [4]
-"For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage" [5]
-"The Portuguese fleet proceeded towards al-Shihr, a sea-port in Hadramawt, which they sacked." [6] In this source they also include the report of the author of Tarikh al-Shihri, who describes the event, i quote: "On Thursday 9 th of Rabi’ II (929/25 February 1523), the abandoned Frank, may God abandon him, came to the port of al-Shihr with about nine sailing- ships, galliots, and grabs, and, landing in the town on Friday, set to fighting a little after dawn. Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, the
11 Franks looting it first, then after them the musketeers (rumah) and, the soldiers and the hooligans of the town (Shaytin al-balad), in conquence of which people (khala ik) were reduced to poverty." Javext (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you genuinely believe that? As said by the previous sources, the city was literally sacked and the Portuguese won the fight as no one could stop them. I think you just can't accept the reality, this is a useless debate. Javext (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
accept what reality? You're just going around battles involving the portuguese and claiming that they won cus they decided to sack a city instead of colonizing them as they wanted to do in the first place. I am not an expert in this topic. Ill just leave this to any future editor who knows about this stuff more than i do and have a somewhat same POV as mine. Have a good day Abo Yemen✉13:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a single source that states the Portuguese wanted to keep the city, you haven't done so and you won't be able to because it is not what happened. Have a good day too. Javext (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you cited say explicitly that the goal of the portuguese before they arrived was to sack the city and leave it... That is more of pirate behavior rather than a colonial empire's approach Abo Yemen✉14:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well you should get used to this type of behaviour by the Portuguese especially in the 16th century, take a look at what these sources state:
-"Anthony Disney has argued that Portuguese actions in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the first decades of the sixteenth century, can hardly be characterized as anything other than piracy, or at least state-sponsored corsairing.' Most conquest enterprises were privately funded, and the crown got portions of seized booty, whether taken on land or at sea. Plus there were many occasions in which local Portuguese governors sponsored expeditions with no other aim than to plunder rich ports and kingdoms, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. This sort of licensing of pillage carried on into the early seventeenth century, although the Portuguese never matched the great inland conquests of the Spanish in the Americas. Booty taken at sea was subject to a twenty percent royal duty."[7]
well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night! Abo Yemen✉17:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
