Talk:Battle of Benadir

Source for this battle

The only evidence of this battle is in a report by the Portuguese commander João de Sepúlveda to the king of Portugal that was written in 1542, translated into English and published in Documents on the Portuguese in Mozambique and Central Africa, Volume III (1540-1560). Because this page has been subject to persistant vandalism and edit-warring by Somali nationalists, I have decided to provide it here for future reference:

Letter from João de Sepúlveda to the King. Mozambique, 1542, August 10.

Sire,

1-In the past year I wrote telling Your Higness how, on the coast of Malindi, things were going in regard to your service, after the stir caused by the foists of the Rumes [Turks] that came there and also because there was a strong belief that there was comng that year a great fleet of them to take these fortresses and punish all our friends. My going, sire, was forced upon me because, had I not gone, all the said coast would have risen in their favour, and its Moors believe that the captain of Sofala is so as far as Cape Guardafui and, for this reason, I was asked for help by our friends who are greatly afraid of the said Rumes and that their people were very sure they would come and said that no help could go from these fortresses and that it would be as well to make them understand that they had to make ready and, knowing that I could go in great safety and that it was required for our good name and the future security of these fortresses, I went and took in my company one hundred men.

2-Item, at the end of August I arrived in Malindi where the coming of the Rumes was regarded as very certain because they had strongly affirmed it and a foist [light-galley] of their company was in Mogadishu. In the said Malindi I took two foists that I found there with coir and, with the four I had and some zambuks and Moors from said Malindi who wanted to go with me, it seemed well to go to the said Mogadishu, which is two hundred leagues from there and the last place of the Moors along the said coast and very famous among them and where there was great certainty as to the coming of the Rumes with whom they were very friendly, and where I arrived one morning out at sea and went ashore forthwith and took the said foist that was there aground and I destroyed the city and did them great damage and injury.

3-Item, I went six leagues further to a bay and a good anchorage for small ships and it is the main stepping place sough by all the ships that come from Arabia and the Straits and there I remained some days, until there came some naos [tradeships] from whom I learned for certain tha the Rumes were not coming that year and, since it was already November and the beginning of the easterlies, I returned to said Mogadishu and made peace with their king and came by way of Brava where I went ashore and destroyed and burnt the place and caused them much damage and killed some Moors, all of which they well deserved due to the friendship and alliance they had with the Rumes, to whom they had delivered three or four Portugals when they were there and, after being well punished, I made peace with them and came away settling the coast in our friendship as far as Malindi where I found a message from Martim Afonso de Sousa, the governor, who was wintering in Mozambique, writing me that he had a great shortage of supplies and cables, all of which I sent in the greatest abundance possible.

Wareno (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting but how is this in anyway a victory for the Portuguese if anything this battle ended in a peace treaty especially since the Portuguese left Mogadishu after destroying then returning to make peace with the ajuraan king i would put this battle as the source said a peace treaty because your source did not say that the battle ended in a victory for the Portuguese empire.The somali nationalists are right about that also you're wrong that this was a victory it was a peace treaty according to this source now. Also i dont see how a destroyed city means the Portuguese won infarct Stalingrad was destroyed by the Germans who ended up loosing the battle, also the source clearly states that the battle ended in a peace treaty i will change the result to peace treaty according to the source hope that satisfies you and the so called imaginary nationalists--Yacoob316 (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Except the Germans wanted to capture Stalingrad and failed because they were pushed out by the Soviets, funny how nowhere does it say that the Portuguese wanted to capture the city or that the Somalians pushed them out, isn't it? Keep in mind that repeatedly changing articles using sockpuppet accounts is a bannable offense.Wareno (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

the source says peace treaty lets leave it at that --Yacoob316 (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Theguywholearnhistory (talk).

Interesting but this is clearly biased. First of all why would you remove an already long and detailed battle just to come up with a source that has little to no information and that doesn't even back up any of the claims of the city. The Battle was a decisive victory for Ajuraan Sultanate and the Portuguese empire didn't even land in the beach of the city. The Portuguese period in East Africa – p. 112. The portuguese were very afraid of the Somalis and didn't attack mogadishu for a long time. And they actually did attack Barawe Before attacking Muqdisho which you just said that they attacked Muqdisho first. The History of the Portuguese, During the Reign of Emmanuel pg.287. And even if it was ended in a "peacy treaty" why did you write portuguese victory it could never be a portuguese victory. Saturday 3 december 2022. 10:08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguywholearnhistory (talk • contribs) 09:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2022

This article has been vandalized by a Portuguese nationalist. He has edited and falsified the whole context and real history of the war. Muqdisho was or has never been sacked and was the richest and most protected coastal city in all of east africa. His claims make no sense and you can see that the talk page is very old and someone has recently edited it 1 of december. THis is what i want it to be chaged to.

The second Ajuran–Portuguese Conflict (1542) was an armed engagement between the Ajuran Sultanate and the Portuguese Empire.

After the Portuguese lost a war against the Somalis of Ajuran Empire in the Battle of Barawa, the situation changed drastically in the Indian Ocean. The Somalis would use coastal guards to detect any threat of naval fleets that is trespassing the sea of Ajuran Empire and the coastal towers would use long-range handheld telescope easily spotting any ships miles away from their coast.[1] The word benadir means coast in Somali referring to the richness of southern Somali coast.[2]

Over the next several decades Somali-Portuguese tensions would remain high and the increased contact between Somali sailors and Ottoman corsairs worried the Portuguese who sent a punitive expedition against Mogadishu under João de Sepúvelda who was a powerful naval commander ordered by the Portuguese king to destroy Mogadishu which was the richest city in Africa and one of the preeminent cities within the Indian Ocean.[3] At Mogadishu, João de Sepúlveda "destroyed the city and did them great damage and injury". Moving a few leagues north, he reached a popular anchorage for tradeships coming from the Red Sea, where he learned that the Turks would not be sailing to East Africa that year. Thus he returned to what remained of Mogadishu, and made a peace deal with its rulers.

However, João de Sepúvelda and his 30 large naval fleets were detected by Ajuran coastal guards and were immediately reported to the Ajuran naval commander called Ahmed Dheere and he sent large naval expedition against the Portuguese navy and managed to destroy all 24 naval fleets and simuteantly killing João de Sepúvelda in the battle. However, the 6 Portuguese fleets managed to slip through the battle and headed straight towards Mogadishu but luckily the 6 ships were detected by the Mogadishu towers guards and the Ajuran army with their purchase of advanced weapons like cannons managed to blow up all the six fleets into smithereens before they even had a chance to reach the Ajuran capital city leaving Mogadishu safe and sound without a single harm being done to the metropolis city. Most of the Portuguese soldiers would be killed in the battle but the survivors were captured and enslaved in Somalia.[5]

The word benadir means coast in Somali referring to the richness of southern Somali coast.[2]

References.

1. The History of the Portuguese, During the Reign of Emmanuel pg.287

2. Njoku, Raphael Chijioke (2013). The History of Somalia. ABC-CLIO. p. 69. ISBN 0313378576. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
3.Tanzania notes and records: the journal of the Tanzania Society pg 76

5. The Portuguese period in East Africa – Page 112

(The last part about benadir being rich he didnt remove but he manipulated and removed or changed much or all of the text i sent above which is the real history.) Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Theguywholearnhistory:  Not done: could you please provide us with the name of the "vandalising" editor? Colonestarrice (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Colonelstarrice: Hello since i am very new to using wikipedia i don't think im able to check that since its a semi protected article. The person who i suppose did it is "Wareno" He has been warned for vandalism before on the battle of sincouwaan. This is what wikipedia said to him "Your recent editing history at Battle of Sincouwaan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree". He has changed this article many times to manipulate history of what actually happened. I am very sure of this guy vandalizing this. I looked at this article 1 month ago and it was very much different and with better detailed proof and references.( Also when will my edit request be accepted. Do i need to do it using a template. Also sorry for the text about the vandalizer in my edit request i just had to tell you guys about this. theguywholearnhistory (talk)

@Wareno: you are welcome and encouraged to comment on this request (please ignore this ping if you're not the editor in question)

@Theguywholearnhistory: before your suggested changes can be implemented, please attempt to discuss them with Wareno here and establish a WP:consensus. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, @Colonestarrice where should I begin...

From the quoted part: "...the coastal towers would use long-range handheld telescope easily spotting any ships miles away from their coast." "...Mogadishu which was the richest city in Africa..."; "...João de Sepúvelda and his 30 large naval fleets..."; "he sent large naval expedition against the Portuguese navy and managed to destroy all 24 naval fleets and simuteantly killing João de Sepúvelda in the battle. However, the 6 Portuguese fleets managed to slip through the battle and headed straight towards Mogadishu but luckily the 6 ships were detected by the Mogadishu towers guards and the Ajuran army with their purchase of advanced weapons like cannons managed to blow up all the six fleets into smithereens before they even had a chance to reach the Ajuran capital city leaving Mogadishu safe and sound without a single harm being done to the metropolis city."

I don't know which part of the above quote sounds even remotely like legitimate encyclopedic discourse, but since you're clearly new to what's going on here, I'll put you up to speed: the only evidence of this battle has already been posted above in the talk page. For some reason which I'm yet to understand, this page and Battle of Barawa have persistently been hit by unregistered users, sockpuppets and Somalian nationalists who for the past four years have insisted in comically poor English that these minor Portuguese raids were astounding Somalian victories somehow, despite multiple bans and locks by administrators. None of the claims correspond to the sources quoted.

The only thing next to do is to report @Theguywholearnhistory for disrupting the article, possibly as a sockpuppet of PaullyMatthews like Battleanalysis, Ibleesa, Dalalyusuf or Yessirdegoat, like you can seen in the history page of this article. Wareno (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Colonelstarrice: Do you not hear yourself. I have clearly stated that this wareno guy is a vandalizer and there is nothing to talk about he is bringing sources that make 0 sense. Let's say that what he is saying is true about the peace treaty in the text at the top of this talk page why is he then writing Portuguese victory. Also what if he doesn't answer how can a wp consensus be established. I'm not only here to fix this article back to its right origin. I also want the vandalism and edit wars on this article to stop.Theguywhlearnhistry (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2022 (gmt+3)

@Theguywholearnhistory: Contentious and potentially contentious changes generally require consensus prior to their implementation; wp:consensus is a policy and it cannot be circumvented. Wareno was not given due time to participate in this discussion (I would personally give them a week to respond). If you are unwilling to wait you can try alternative means at dispute resolution (though I would counsel you to wait). I know these rules can sometimes appear frustrating and abstruse but please don't take this out on me, I'm only trying to help. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wareno: I said that im new to wikipedia but i am not new to the history of Ajuraan Sultanate and nevertheless the battles it fought with outside agressors. Can you give us a link of ur proof. Also the "proof" that you have sent isn't real it makes no sense and you even admitted before to it being a stalemate why are you saying it was a portuguese victory. Also it's funny you are talking about vandalism when you really are the vandalizer. You have been warned twice before for vandalising articles and participating in editing wars. In other battles which have the portuguese empire participating in those battles. It is true about the cannons which were acquired from the ottomans and it is highly belieavable.

@Colonelstarrice: The Ajuraan sultanate mobilized quickly after what happened in Barawa. Here is a quote "...Word had spread of what had happened in Barawa, and a large troop mobilization took place. Many horsemen, soldiers and battleships in defense positions were guarding the city"... Then tristao de cunha didn't sail for mogadishu and instead just went for socotra. Because his soldiers advised him not to go to muqdisho. and its reference. "...Over the next several decades Somali-Portuguese tensions remained high and the increased contact between Somali sailors and Ottoman corsairs worried the Portuguese who sent a punitive expedition against Mogadishu under João de Sepúlveda, which was unsuccessful..." Reference: (The Portuguese period in East Africa – p. 112.) Jao de sepulvada tried to take muqdisho but failed it is mentioned in another article on wikipedia. In ur text it says jao de sepulvada went to muqdisho first then went to barawa. "...I returned to said Mogadishu and made peace with their king and came by way of Brava where I went ashore and destroyed and burnt the place and caused them much damage and killed some Moors"... Funny thing is he never went to barawa it was tristao de cunha and you are just talking gibberish. I'd like for you to renew this article with factual information and not one to your liking but one that is true. We can work togheter towards fixing this article for the greater good. Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2022 (gmt+3)

@Colonelstarrice: I would also like to add that Wareno only retaliation tactic he has when he is caught red handed vandalizing articles is calling people sockpuppet accounts so he cannot be punished for his wrondoings. I am in no way vandalizing this article i am trying to get it cleaned up and renewed with factual information that is not biased. Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2022 (gmt+3)

@Theguywholearnhistory and Wareno: though I'm quite delighted that you two are trying to convince me that your side of the story is the only true one, I'm neither an administrator nor do I have special arbitral powers that would give me the right to adjudicate this dispute.

I also couldn't help but notice that this discussion is progressively degenerating into the realm of personal attacks, so I would like to remind you two to remain civil and respectful. Try to talk this out and if that doesn't work, ask for a third opinion, consult the dispute resolution noticeboard or, as a last resort step, initiate an RfC; but don't take this to the personal level or this whole thing will end up at ANI and believe me, that's not worth it. Colonestarrice (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Colonestarrice: I'm not actually trying to convince you of anything. Again, I'm not sure what gave you the idea this is anywhere near a legitimate discussion (I can tell you didn't actually read anything by your suggestions), but the other user has already been reported. Wareno (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

There are no legitimate or illegitimate discussions; the mere fact that you contested Theguywholearnhistory's edit request spawned a discussion. I know that you filed an SPI against them but the presumption that Theguywholearnhistory is a sock is currently only shared by you, so I'm still trying to AGF until they are a proven sock. Colonestarrice (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wareno: I would like to ask you once again if you are willing to establish a wp consensus or of you are just going to ignore my facts and points stated above and just start accusing me of being a sockpuppet account. If that is the case then how can we ever believe this article being real when the only "real editor" is not even willing to talk to other wikipedia users and just goes into defensive mode whenever someone stumbles into one of his vandalized articles.

@Colonestarrice: I'm in no way doing personal attacks against wareno since i barely know the person. I am just stating mere facts about his actions and attitude. Ive already asked him once for more information but he just keeps going into defensive mode and i don't believe he even wants to establish a wp consensus. 

Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2022 (gmt+3)

{{ping|wareno} Hello once again. Ive checked out ur source of Documents on the Portuguese in Mozambique and Central Africa, Volume III (1540-1560) Page 133. Nothing about the letter you said. So i thought he might have mistyped it. I checked 131 and 113 too just incase u had mistyped it but still no trace of "the letter to the king" Could you maybe give more info about ur source since it is not very legitimate. Check out my other posts in the talkpage where i have went further into detail about some of ur errors.

Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2022 (gmt+3)

Proposed paragraph (December 2022)

{{ping|wareno} Hello i would like to add this paragraph under the battle page if you have anything to say about the edit say so i will wait 3 days before making the edit. Over the next several decades Somali-Portuguese tensions would remain high and the increased contact between Somali sailors and Ottoman corsairs worried the Portuguese who sent a punitive expedition against Mogadishu under João de Sepúvelda who was a powerful naval commander ordered by the Portuguese king to destroy Mogadishu which was the richest city in Africa and one of the preeminent cities within the Indian Ocean.[3] Tanzania notes and records: the journal of the Tanzania Society pg 76

I will use the same source that you are using for the last part about benadir and it meaning the richness of the somali coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theguywholearnhistory (talk • contribs) 11:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wareno: alerting to discussion. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The user whose first activity on Wikipedia was to direct insults at me and claims to have checked "ur source" "since it is not very legitimate" is lying. Wareno (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Theguywholearnhistory, I have some remarks with regard to this proposed paragraph:

1. What you wrote is a run-on sentence; please reorganize it in several shorter sentences.
2. The reference here (Tanzania notes and records: the journal of the Tanzania Society pg 76) is not complete: we also need the name of the author, the date of publication, the title of the paper or chapter, and preferably also an online reference no. for the journal or paper like a DOI or a OCLC no.
3. Could you please either provide a link to where the paper can be read online if possible, or if not possible provide a literal quote from the source showing that it indeed regards João de Sepúvelda's mission as a punitive expedition sent to destroy Mogadishu, and that it indeed describes Mogadishu at the time as the richest city in Africa and one of the preeminent cities within the Indian Ocean.
4. The article already speaks throughout two sections about an expedition by João de Sepúvelda. Is your proposed paragraph talking about another expedition that happened later, or is it talking about the same expedition, but with most of the details left out? If the latter, is the paragraph supposed to replace the existing sections? In general, it's not clear to me how the proposed paragraph would fit in the article. The easiest way to show us is probably to edit the article, adding the proposed paragraph, and then to immediately self-revert.
5. This one is also for Wareno and all other editors reading this: our Sultanate of Mogadishu article says that the Portuguese Empire was unsuccessful of conquering Mogadishu where the powerful naval Portuguese commander called João de Sepúvelda and his army fleets was soundly defeated by the powerful Ajuran navy during the Battle of Benadir, our Somalia–Turkey relations article repeats something very similar, and our History of Somalia article says that the attack on Mogadishu by João de Sepúvelda was repelled, In the Battle of Benadir. Meanwhile, other articles like Mogadishu, History of Mogadishu and Military history of Somalia maintain the narrative currently also presented in this article (Battle of Benadir) that the Portuguese Empire was unsuccessful in conquering Mogadishu permanently, despite the city being destroyed by a powerful naval Portuguese commander called João de Sepúvelda. After the Battle of Benadir, a peace treaty was signed. So which one is it, was João de Sepúvelda's initial attack successful or not? Did he destroy the city or not? Was there a peace treaty, or was he simply –and soundly– defeated? Can't we get this right in all of our articles, rather than having them outright contradict each other?

   Update: I fixed the six articles mentioned above [1][2][3][4][5][6] based on the sources provided by عبدالرحمن4132 below. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

6. On a related note, the exact reference Tanzania notes and records: the journal of the Tanzania Society pg 76 is used in five other articles [7], which suggests that Theguywholearnhistory copied it from these articles. However, in each of these articles the reference is used to support the sentence In 1660, the Portuguese in Mombasa surrendered to a joint Somali-Ottoman force. So only the ref is copied, but the text was not copied and is in fact rather different in content (our article gives 1542 as the date for the Battle of Benadir, in other words some 120 years before the surrender in Mombasa, Kenya). Is this a ghost reference or what? I've searched the history of these five pages, and the earliest addition of this ref and sentence dates from 2009 with the creation of one of these articles [8]. Theguywholearnhistory, can you explain this? Where did you get the ref? Did you read the source?

If you have any questions yourself, please feel free to ask. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey Sorry for the late reply.

I will answer your questions in a numerical manner.

1. I will fix it and send it here in the talk page tomorrow.

2. The book was written by J. E. G Sutton, Released 1968. "Tanzania Notes And Records The Journal Of The Tanzania Society" Page 76.

4. It's talking about the same expedition but from another view. Muqdisho a city with ruined watchtowers yet to this day, would surely be able to detect Portuguese warships coming to plunder the city. Ye it has been cropped out i felt like changing a lot at once "would result in editing war" and you told me to edit slowly and sure. Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Theguywholearnhistory, no problem about the late reply (sometimes I too will take a long time to answer, but it's okay to take it slow since there is no deadline here). However, you did not answer the most important question: can you explain why the exact reference Tanzania notes and records: the journal of the Tanzania Society pg 76 as you typed it here is used in five other articles [9]? Where did you get the reference, and did you actually read it? The fact that you are talking about a book while it clearly is a journal paper also suggests that you did not. If you have not read the source (and you should be honest about that!), we cannot use it here.

Apart from that, the article has now been updated with a source (Strandes 1968) which exactly argues that the Portuguese warships could not possibly have destroyed Mogadishu. The article is now saying that it's not likely that João de Sepúlveda's small fleet actually destroyed Mogadishu. Does this not assuage your concerns? Is there anything else that you would like to add to the article that it is not already saying now? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:FOC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Apaugasma: I appreciate your patience for having actually looked into this issue and finding out that this issue goes beyond this one article, and that the citation in question was recycled from a wildly different context on other articles, which I wasn't aware of. However I have already posted in this very talk page above the only evidence of this battle [10], in the hopes it would stem the persistent vandalism. Aside from that, be aware you're entertaining a user whose first activity was to direct insults at another, deprecates any source that doesn't confirm what he wants to hear and uses 10 year old citations copied from entirely different contexts to support his version of events. I'm not sure what's preventing it, but I'm still hoping folks will wake up to their senses. Wareno (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC) Hi Wareno, I understand what you're saying but let's just talk content here. The concerns I expressed above should speak for themselves, and we need answers to these on Theguywholearnhistory's part. If that should not be forthcoming, any chance you can bring the other articles mentioned above in line with this one? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC) @Apaugasma you sound like a reasonable fellow and I want to be polite, but take it from someone who's been removing persistent vandalism from this article for four years already: The fact that this user started its activity by directing personal attacks at someone else is what ought to speak for itself. This whole affair has continued for much longer than it's got any right to. The other articles will have to be dealt with in time. Wareno (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC) What can I say? I tend to agree, but it's just not my call. Perhaps this time other editors at the ANI report will be a bit more perspicacious. It really depends on them, not on you or me. Meanwhile, since policy is clear that article talk pages should be used to discuss content not contributors I'll collapse this section. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

hello @Apaugasma, I know I'm new to this discussion but let me say this

1) the only closest thing I managed to find from the source given which is The Portuguese Period in East Africa by Justus Strandes page 112 says the following:

de Sepulveda, with the small forces at his command, could have won such a complete victory over the well-populated town of Mogadishu. At all events all the fleets which came to the town before or after this event, and which had had ideas of attacking it, were sufficiently put off by the look of it. It is unlikely that the town was actually destroyed, what is much more probable is that - and its stops here, its hard to get more than this.

you find the following text here https://books.google.ae/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=s8YJAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Mogadishu+1542

2) i managed to find another book which is Making Sense of Somali History: Volume 1 mentions the failure of Portuguese to conquer Mogadishu which quotes from Justus Strandes and can be found here: https://books.google.ae/books?id=X1dDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&dq=Jo%C3%A3o+de+Sep%C3%BAlveda+Mogadishu&hl=ar&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXybyy8J78AhUKgv0HHVtvDYMQ6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q&f=false

3) another source Francis Xavier: His Life, his times - vol. 2: India, 1541-1545 by Schurhammer, Georg page 98-9 mentions that Mogadishu was fired upon but not captured and later made peace treaty with the sultan: https://archive.org/details/fx-schurhammer2/page/n117/mode/1up

let me know what you think, regards. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi عبدالرحمن4132! These look like excellent sources, many thanks for that! I have used Strandes 1968 and Schurhammer 1977 to update the article. I will shortly also update the articles mentioned above (both the claim in one series of articles that João de Sepúvelda's fleet was defeated and the claim in the other series of articles that Mogadishu was destroyed turn out to be wrong). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done: the other articles are now updated. [11][12][13][14][15][16] ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Will you also update Battle Of Benadir wikipedia article?

It still says portuguese victory which has been proven to be false by now Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I already updated this article before the others. But you have a good point about the result= parameter, which I now also changed to reflect the newly cited sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you also remove the part under battle where it says he destroyed the city and did it great damage. Since we have now come to the consensus that Mogadishu never was destroyed. (Can i do that myself without asking you) i feel like it might be editing war if i do that Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you could have done it yourself without asking, but you're also right to discuss it here first because it is part of the previous disagreement.

I think you may be misunderstanding the section on the battle as it now stands. It is first giving João de Sepúlveda's own account, which does indeed say that he destroyed Mogadishu. While it is accurate to say that Mogadishu was not destroyed, it is also accurate to say that according to João de Sepúlveda, it was destroyed. After giving João de Sepúlveda's account we are immediately clarifying that modern historians do not believe it.

I see no good reason to remove João de Sepúlveda's account, and I strongly suspect other editors will agree with me on this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I will add the part that modern historians do not believe it since it is kinda deceptive Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted this. This paragraph could be rewritten to mention modern historians' opinions first and João de Sepúlveda's account later, but just adding an ungrammatical sentence like While many modern historians may contradict it. in the middle of João de Sepúlveda's account is disruptive. Please ask someone with a better grasp of English than yourself to help you with this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that the part about making peace with the sultan and then going for barawa was very weird. Since barawa was a part of the Ajuraan Sultanate that ruled Mogadishu why would they make peace with 1 city of an empire then raid another?. Also that part had no references. Making Sense of Somali History: Volume 1 with quotes of justus stranden does have references. I don't know why you would go with a peace treaty at the result parameter when 2 out of 3 sources indicate on the portuguese never taking over mogadishu. Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to add a source of mine that i found. page 135 https://archive.org/details/africanpastchron0000unse/page/134/mode/2up

It talks briefly about the richness of Mogadishu and its people but one thing that i find quite interesting is that there is no mention of battle of benadir or any battles at all. That baffles me because in the other short summaries about importat east african trading cities they always mentioned or bragged about in pages 132-135. About how they either plundered Made treaties with or took over respective cities. It mentions how Barawa was plundered and destroyed. How the king of Mombasa refused to obey the commands of the Portuguese king and then lost his city. Mentions of how important and close malindi was to the portuguese and much more. This just further indicates my claim on how the portuguese never took over Mogadishu or had treaties with them. Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The part about making peace with the sultan and then going for barawa is sourced in the article to Schurhammer 1977, pp. 98–99, which is all we need given the fact that Schurhammer is a subject expert. All we do on Wikipedia is summarize the significant points of views of experts. A peace deal having been made does not contradict the city never having been conquered, in fact peace deals historically were an often used alternative for (attempts at) conquest. Please don't contradict scholars like Schurhammer without backup from other scholarly sources.

The new source you bring on here does not look too great since it seems not to be written by an expert in early modern East Africa (it looks like a tertiary source), but it might be okay depending on what you will cite it for. Just make sure that what you write in the article is actually backed by the page you cite it for, and that you put it somewhere in the article where it does not disrupt the existing content. Please also ask someone to review it for English language. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I have many more sources that indicate that schurhammer might have been wrong. Since it says the portuguese tried to take barawa first then went for mogadishu. https://archive.org/details/historyofportugu01os/page/286/mode/2up

This was written by osorio jeronimo a famous portuguese historian. so its like 4 sources against 1 source. page 286-287 talk about how they took and destroyed barawa and then tried to go for mogadihsu but was stopped by his officers and pilots (idk why it says pilot check for yourself) since the city was hard to take and fortressed great number of soldiers were patrolling the shores. Theguywholearnhistory (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Jerónimo Osório (1506–1580) is an early modern primary source like João de Sepúlveda, and so should not be weighed up against a modern historian like Schurhammer. Wikipedia's views as presented in wiki-voice should be strictly based on modern academic sources.

In most cases primary sources such as Osório should only be used if modern secondary sources like Schurhammer refer to them. Sometimes it is appropriate to use them with explicit in-text attribution ("According to the Portuguese chronicler Jerónimo Osório (1506–1580), ..."), provided that any interpretation of them is strictly based on secondary sources (as we refer to João de Sepúlveda and provide an interpretation of his account based on modern sources). Please read Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources carefully.

For the rest, just make sure that whatever you add to the article is actually directly verifiable in the source you cite, and that it is properly fitted in with the already existing content. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)