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 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).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt 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.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Ottoman participation in the battle have been added to the article lede and infobox on the basis of Salvadore, Matteo (2016-06-17). The African Prester John and the Birth of Ethiopian-European Relations, 1402-1555. Routledge. ISBN978-1-317-04546-5. and Ahmed, Faisal; Lambert, Alexandre (2021-11-29). The Belt and Road Initiative: Geopolitical and Geoeconomic Aspects. Taylor & Francis. ISBN978-1-000-48800-5.. However - neither of these sources talk about the battle in any depth at all - there appears to be a single sentence in each mentioning the battle. Salvatore (which is about Ethiopean–European relations) talks about "Ottoman-Mameluk"s, which may just be sloppy writing, and Ahmed & Lambert, again only has a single sentence and does not appear to be a historical work. We really need discussion in sources that talk about the subject in some sort of detail to include Ottoman involvement in the article, and the lede and infobox should reflect the content of the article proper, and not be used to introduce additional claims.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidDijkgraaf I don't understand why you are deleting my edits when it's more than clear the Ottomans participated. It's not just "my claims". There are multiple reliable sources which tells us the same. You should not remove sourced content just because it's not convenient to you. Javext (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Javext It isn't good practice to start a discussion with an accusation of bias. As wikipedia editors we should assume good faith were you can.
Anyway, I have explained to you why I am removing your edits. Nowhere in the article it is clear that there were Ottoman forces in the allied fleet. If there were you wouldn't have much difficulty finding a source for that right? The sources you use don't go into any detail at all so you probably have to find something else.
Wikipedia guidelines state that the infobox and lede should reflect the article. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidDijkgraaf I couldn't consider as good faith someone who deleted sourced content without a proper reasoning behind.
I have literally given so many sources that back up Ottoman participation in the Muslim alliance during this battle and I can give more. It is an undeniable fact that they participated and so I don't understand their removal from the participant box. I have no problems of making a paragraph in the article explaining ottoman presence in this battle, if that's why you are removing them as belligerents even though, like I said before, it's undeniable that they participated.
Another source that explains Ottoman participation and tells us they sent a fleet from the Red Sea:
None of these links work for me. Google books works differently for different people - how much discussion ABOUT THE BATTLE do these sources give?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigel Ish I can assure you they give enough evidence of Ottoman participation in this battle. I have selected one source I think explains this better.
If you can't open it, here's the text I quoted from the book:
"Aggressive Portuguese expansion in the Indian Ocean during the first decade of the sixteenth century threatened both the balance of power in the region and long-established Ottoman and Mamluk trading interests. This provoked an alliance between the Ottomans, Mamlûks, the Sultanate of Gujarat and the ruler of Calicut, who assembled a fleet..." "The allied fleet commanded by Ottoman Adm Mir Hussein Pasha..." "The technological superiority of the state-of-the-art European vessels became obvious as the Portuguese blasted the enemy vessels with cannon fire, before closing in to board, taking two Turkish naus, two Gujarati naus and the two Turkish gales. In addition, two Turkish naus, two Gujarati naus and two Turkish caravelas were sunk."
There is more but I believe it is enough. Javext (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better for you to provide primary and contemporary sources instead of tertiary ones. As far as i know they had no access to Indian ocean during the time of this battle and the only time the Mamluks received help from the Ottomans was after this battle under Selman reis which helped them repel a Portuguese attack on jeddah in 1517.
Also who's this Hussien Pasha? There's only one familiar with this name which is Hussien al Kurdi and he was a Mamluk admiral not Ottoman. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @عبدالرحمن4132, I have no problem in stating primary sources.
This particular book quickly analyzes the work of the Portuguese historian Duarte Barbosa, who was a contemporary during this battle.
"Further information on the identity of these Turks is furnished by the Portuguese historian Duarte Barbosa, who was in India from about 1500 to about 1516. He writes that 'Adil Shahi authorities in Goa had received Turkish escapees following the Portuguese defeat of an Ottoman navy at Diu in 1509. These men, writes Barbosa, were resettled in Goa with the help of Muslim merchants who financed the building of shipyards and plants for the manufacture of iron and copper ordnance. Mansel L. Dames, tr., The Book of Duarte Barbosa (1918, repr. Nendeln/Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1967), pp. 1:175-77."
I don't have much knowledge about Ottoman captains. However, from what I have read, Mir Hussein Pasha was the admiral of the Ottoman fleet that came from the Red Sea to Diu in 1509.
To be honest, I believe I have provided more than enough sources, you can ask for primary, secondary and even tertiary. If you still think these 9 sources I presented aren't enough, I'll gladly give more. Javext (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your statement, I don't have much knowledge about Ottoman captains. However, from what I have read, Mir Hussein Pasha was the admiral of the Ottoman fleet that came from the Red Sea to Diu in 1509. Yet again, i fail to see who this Hussein Pasha is. I tried to find anything about him, but I got only Mir Hussein al-Kurdi, who was a Mamluke admiral, not an Ottoman, and also, the Ottomans didn't have a navy in the Red Sea; they did not even have access to the Red Sea until 1517.
Regarding Duarte Barbosa, his text says the following (which can be found here[1]:
Having heard the news of the overthrow of the Rumes before Dio by the Viceroy Dom Francisco Dalmeida* as I have stated above in its proper place, he sent to summon all those who had escaped thence, and they, leaving their Captain Mirocem in the kingdom of Guzarate, came to Goia. The Hydalcam received them well and determined to give them all the aid and succour of which they stood in need, and to set them up again by the help of other Moorish
The note that the book provides says this:
Yusuf ‘Adil Shah, himself a “ Mamluk like Mir Husain, the Egyptian admiral, who was a Kurd by birth, was evidently from the beginning in the combination of Muhammadan powers against the Portuguese, and after the sack of DabhOl by D 'Almeida, he was eager for revenge. Hence the combination of the naval powers which Barbosa alludes to, and the activity in the Goa River which led to the attack on it made by Alboquerque. Although Yusuf ‘Adil Shah was a Shia, a large part of his Muhammadan subjects were Sunni, and he had been involved in many difficulties by his attempts to establish the Shia creed in his dominions. It must be remembered also that the Muhammadan fleet was under the Sultan of Egypt who was not yet subject to Selim the Sultan of Turkey, the great enemy of the Persian Shah, the leader of the Shias.
Hence, we can say that Duarte mistakenly called the Mamluks as Rumes, as the fleet that was fighting was under the banner of the Mamluk sultan, not the Ottomans, therefore the Ottoman navy is just wrong.
But even if we assume they did participate, they were mostly mercenaries (with other origins, as stated in the article) fighting under the Mamluk banner, not the Ottoman banner. Hence, their involvement is not really significant. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could be that you are wrong about what is considered to be a proper reason, so it is still worth it to assume good faith. I have no dog it this fight. If your sources proof Ottoman involvement I would be glad to add them.
What is the difference here between those Turkish ships and the Turkish mercenaries mentioned in the article? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidDijkgraaf I can't see anything in this article mentioning Turkish mercenaries, could you tell me where is it? Javext (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Javext Under The Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt in the second-last paragraph DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the Venetians also seemed to have send auxiliaries to the Mamluks instead of directly involving themselves DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I can't open the source that talks about the turkish mercenaries. Even if this was the case, the Ottomans still sent a fleet and soldiers under the command of Mir Hussein Pasha, which proves their participation as I have stated before.
As for the Venetians, they are also involved, sending multiple vessels, artillery and gunners to support the Muslims as they wanted to oust the Portuguese from the Indian ocean since they were disrupting their trade networks, etc.[2]Javext (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disney, A. R. (Anthony R.). A History of Portugal and the Portuguese Empire : From Beginnings to 1807. Volume 2, The Portuguese Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
In 1508, the Mamluk fleet sailed into the western Indian Ocean and inflicted serious losses on a Portuguese force off Chaul, killing the viceroy’s son, Dom Lourenc¸o de Almeida. But the older Almeida himself retrieved the situation in 1509 by defeating the Mamluk and Gujarati fleets in a decisive battle off Diu.
The Formation of the Portuguese Colonial Empire. N.p., 1920.
His father, the Viceroy, amply revenged the loss in the beginning of 1509 by severely defeating the combined Egyptian and Gujarat fleet at Diu, and driving the remnant back into the Red Sea
Boxer writes: These exploits of Albuquerque were made possible by his predecessor Franciso de Almeida’s prior destruction of a makeshift Egyptian-Gujarati fleet off Diu
Danvers writes: The Sultan of Egypt, Mansur Ghori, sent one of his officers named Amir Husain with thirteen ships (o-hrabs) full of fighting men and munitions of war towards the coasts of Hindustan. Sultan Mahmud of Gujarat also prepared several ships to oppose the Firingis, and dispatched them from the ports of Diu, Surat, Goga, Dabal, and Chand. The Egyptian vessels touched first at Diu, and joining those of Gujurat, sailed towards Chand, where the Firingis had assembled. This force was augmented by forty vessels of the Samuri, and some from the port of Dabal
I didn't cherry pick. Non of the sources I found talk about Ottoman or Venetian participation. They might have sent support, but the states themselves weren't participating. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, however I can also find other sources that only state one of the participants of the muslim coalition as being defeated and not mentioning the others.
Source that only states the defeat of the Mamluk fleet:
Like I said, I don't have the necessary knowledge to debate about Ottoman fleets or captains. I was just stating what the sources said.
----
It is a fact that both Venice and Ottoman empire were involved in this conflict. Now, whether or not they were directly involved in the battle or just supplied/supported the Mamluk-Gujarat-Calicut coalition is another debate.
I believe a good solution for this would be to put the Venice Republic and the Ottoman Empire under "Supported by".
Let me know your thoughts. Javext (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using "Supported by" in the infbobox is not according to the guidelines of Wikipedia. We can explain in the article that the Mamluks recieved support from Venice and the Ottomans, but they weren't direct belligerents. They should not be in the infobox. The sources that go into any detail and the authors are most familiar with Portuguese history don't mention Venice or the Ottomans. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it state that using "Supported by" is against the guidelines of Wikipedia? There are so many articles with it and nobody does anything about it. Javext (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg)
.svg)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
