Talk:Battle of Diu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ottomans in India???

Ottomans in India in 1509? I think there is a confusion here with later events.

Yes, Ottomans in India, also in 1509, yes! You clever! Please research it more and come with an academic document and then talk about it, correctly. There is a huge historiographic archive titled "Hint Deniz Seferleri" in Turkish historiography which means "Indian Ocean Campaigns", good luck! Karak1lc1k (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman navy ???

Any sources about Ottoman navy in this war ? Like previous unsigned talk, I find this claim unreliable. During the reign of Bayezit II Ottoman Turkey and Mameluke Egypt were rivals and there were frequent clashes between the two. Under these circumstances it was almost impossible for Bayazıt II to send a support navy to Egypt. By the way Suez Canal was not open. How would the navy be transferred to Indian Ocean ? (To be sure, Ottoman navy tried to capture Diu. But it was much later. see Indian Ocean campaigns) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I cleared out the Category of Ottomans. (Above reason) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please research it more and talk about it. There is a huge historiographic archive titled "Hint Deniz Seferleri" in Turkish historiography which means "Indian Ocean Campaigns", good luck! Karak1lc1k (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea

I just corrected a reference to Indian Sea to Arabian Sea. As far as I understand, the Indian Ocean starts right below the tip of the bay of the Indian subcontinent (Kanyakumari), and on the left there is the Arabian Sea (i.e. everything above it). So Daman and Diu, Goa, etc are all lined across the Arabian Sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudiptachatterjee (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge tag

This article has a merge tag on it. The discussion is here. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As a conclusion of the discussion, Turkish-Portuguese War (1509) has been transformed into a redirect of this article. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish–Portuguese_War_(1509)&oldid=359197623 --Kimdime (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Christian/Muslim Power struggle"

The sentence: "It also marks the spillover of the Christian-Islamic power struggle, in and around the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East, into the Indian Ocean which was the most important region for international trade at the time." was removed since it is POV. Neither Venice nor Ragusa were Islamic entities.

This battle was a power struggle between Portugal and Venice for lucrative trade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.195.249.101 (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Christian allies of the Mamluks of Egypt, Gujarat etc., Though possibly with some mercenaries, had a role only on military assistance, more particularly in the logistical plan, rather than direct involvement. The Ottoman Empire was the same as Venice, Raguza etc., However, everything indicates, more direct military involvement in men, in number of men or their positions(?). It would be appropriate to put "Supported by:" (but with the question of the Ottoman Empire in the first or second group). Moreover Francisco de Almeida gives it an epic dimension of Cruzade, literary "increased" even more in the monumental Decadas da Asia of João de Barros and other chroniclers. --LuzoGraal (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Venetians only indirectly supported the effort from the Ottomans and Gujarat. Probably this should be clarified as you suggest. However, it is misleading to talk about a Muslim/Christian power struggle. Neither Venice, nor Ragusa nor France had a problem to ally themselves with the Ottomans when it served their self-interest. The Venetians did not want to undercut their monopoly on the trade with spice from India over the Red Sea and Alexandria so they supported the Ottomans in this particular struggle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.195.249.101 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC) This was a war between Portugal and Mamluks and Ottomans, suported by some europeans states, but, was a religious war too. You are pathetic with that line "Portugal x Venice". Are you retarded? Look at the beligerants, Venice only supported the allies. 100% of the combatents were islamics. Only ships were from Venice. Iliteracy..

Parciality

This article is parcial, and criticizes portugueses in every part. That's a lot of opinative lines, and worse, about the war reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.191.2.126 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Several Issues

As a few have already pointed out here, there are quite some issues with this article. First and foremost in my opinion are the supposed belligerent listed as participants, namely the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Ragusa. While it is true that the Mamluk expedition counted many mercenaries of Turkic origin, this is not to say the 'Ottoman Empire' itself participated or endorsed the conflict; I believe the confusion may stem from the fact that the Portuguese referred to both Turks and Mamluks as "rumes" indiscriminately. The Ottomans were rivals of the Mamluk Egyptians had no acess to the Indian ocean until they infact conquered Egypt in 1517, a short while after this battle; likewise, the Republic of Ragusa was a rival of Venice, and wouldn't have much incentive in aiding them... I don't mean to say their participation just seems "unlikely", I do mean it is false and a simple misunderstandment.

Furthermore, for such an important battle, the number of participants is incomplete, the casualties absent, and the battle itself, though sketched out is completely unsourced and very vague at how it actually unfolded even though all this information is readily available - at least in Portuguese it is, but the non-Portuguese sources don't seem to provide all that many details beyond the generic. For these reasons I think an article of this importance is well due for an overhaul. Thank you for reading -Crenelator (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Gujarat Sultanate.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Citation for article piece

The line "They had to spend the monsoon season on the island of Kamaran and called at Aden at the tip of the Red Sea, where they got involved in costly local politics with the Tahirid Emir, before finally crossing the Indian Ocean." cites a source that doesn't actually contain the information, at least for the page numbers the citation specifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoozaz1 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: This piece of information is actually contained in this book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoozaz1 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

"battle of annhilation"

What does that mean. I'm coming from italian version wiki which has the exact same translated words. But i can tell you that battles of annhilation simply do not exist, and definitely Lepanto and Trafalgar weren't so. The comparison itself looks very amateurish, more essay-stic than encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.116.253.238 (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 16 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Battle of Diu (1509) → Battle of Diu – Apparently no other battle with name so no need for (1509) just like other linked wikis −ebrahim^talk 20:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war on unsourced map

Please @Wareno:, put a source on your map, since it is WP:OR. We are in an edit war and next step will be report you to WP:ANI because you do not explain the map origins. Ixocactus (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ixocactus: I already provided a source for the image on its page before you reverted my changes. And if you bothered to actually read the article and discuss here or send a message before arbitrarily deciding other peoples work needs to be deleted, you'd quickly realize whether it is original research or not. Reverted, and cease your baseless nonsense before I report you. Wareno (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Wareno:. I noticed that you have sourced the image on Commons. Looks good now. Ixocactus (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Battle of Diu 1509 Diagram.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit warring ...

To repeat what I just said at ANI: Having just looked through the article and its history, what this alleged "vandalism" consists of is that Wareno wants his pet image in the article and doesn't want a flag icon the other fellow's sought to put in. Trout slaps all around, but neither one seems to be accurate. Wareno's image pertains to a people who killed the Portuguese commander ... on a different continent, a year after the battle the article commemorates. The inclusion of a crude illustration of those generic people is trivial at best, and not remotely vandalism. Ravenswing 16:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And I'll repeat what I said there: I appreciate that you took the time to look through the issue. But I'll point out that the justification for the recent edits made by the opposite party were that A) the image was removed because it's "unrelated"; B) That the flagicon along with the belligerents it represents belong in the list of participants of the battle. First off, as we can see, the section from which the image was removed specifically mentions the people whom the image was made to represent roughly in the same time period, hence, it's not at all "unrelated". Quite simply, some user thought it was unrelated, and removed it, so of course I put it back. Second, some users have inserted some belligerents into the box, which did not take part in the battle. Where are the sources that prove they did? They don't exist, as I already said time and time again, but why isn't the opposite party being asked to produce at once any evidence that justifies their behaviour? Once they are, you will see the issue settled. Wareno (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Do not include the Cafres illustration - an illustration (and probably not a reliable one given the age) of southern African nomads doesn't aid the reader of the article about a naval battle off the coast of India. In addition, remove All the flags from the infobox - they are so small as to be unusable.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And I'll repeat what I just said at ANI: "Unrelated" might not be entirely accurate; "too trivial and inconsequential to the subject of the article to warrant inclusion" is. I would've removed the image, as irrelevant to the subject, myself. And yes, we have heard your arguments. For my own part, I don't care much for the inference that the issue will not be "settled" until the other fellow "justifies" his behavior, the more so that you are edit warring yourself, and you've done it more than once on the article. You do not own this article, and your permission is not required for others to edit it, even when they're editing your own contributions.

Nigel Ish, your suggestions sound fine to me. Let's go with that. Ravenswing 20:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)