Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ash-Shihr


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I am sure that this closure will not be satisfying to the participants but, reading through this discussion, there seems to be more words of accusations about editors and the author of one source used than an evaluation of the state of the articles. There is not even a consensus about whether or not the subjects of these articles are hoaxes or not.

But this is definitely not using "No consensus" in lieu of a "Keep" decision. I think you'd have a more productive and focused discussion if there was a return to AFD with these articles unbundled so participants could spend time assessing the notability of each individual event instead of discussing contributors or speculating on their motivations and points-of-view. I think it would also be helpful if you posted announcements of future AFD discussions on related WikiProjects, like Military History, on the next go-round. We need more subject matter experts here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Ash-Shihr

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I hereby request the deletion of Battle of Ash-Shihr, and I have decided to bundle in the same request the pages


 * Siege of Jeddah (1520),
 * Expedition to Kamaran,
 * Battle of Kamaran and
 * Battle of Bab al-Mandab,

because they were all created by the same user and pertain to the same topic.

The articles proposed to be deleted, are either completely bogus in the case of the first three or fail the notability test in the case of the latter two to warrant pages of their own.

The first three never actually happened despite citing sources which are mostly in Turkish anyway. In the case of the first, the Portuguese never attacked Shihr in 1520, but the Portuguese commander Manuel de Vasconcelos did attack the city in 1532, defeating the Ottoman forces on the occasion. In the case of the second, the Portuguese governor of India never attacked Jeddah in 1520, nor did any Portuguese ever attack it after 1517. In the case of the third, the Portuguese never occupied Kamaran in order to be "completely destroyed and expelt" as implied by the article. The last two articles consist of minor naval actions, that would be more appropriately contained entirely within the page Sefer Reis. Wareno (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Portugal,  and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:VERIFIABILITY. Hello, firstly I would like to note that the user who nominated these pages for deletion has been disruptively editing and pov pushing on one of the articles he nominated for deletion. He removed sourced content (violation of WP:CRV) and replaced it with sources that have nothing to do with the battle. He removed the sources that support the Ottoman victory and disregarded the fact that the date of the battle in 1531 is supported by three in page references and replaced it with sources that refer to a different event in 1532. This edit is what I am referring to.

The first battle Battle of Ash-Shihr occurred in 1531 this battle is described by historian Yilmaz Oztuna and an attack on Ash-Shihr in 1531 is mentioned by this source. You can find the accessible version here.

As for the second page Siege of Jeddah an attack on Jeddah in the year 1520 is mentioned by the same source as above and as for the other in page reference historian Ekrem Şama states that the Portuguese attack was repelled.

For the third page the Expedition to Kamaran the event is clearly supported by the accessible in page reference by historian Yilmaz Oztuna. Yilmaz Oztuna is a historian and Turkish sources are allowed to be used (see WP:NOENG).

For the fourth page Battle of Kamaran the battle is literally described in detail by historian Giancarlo Casale and is also supported by a source by historian Daniel R. Headrick. Please see pp 67-68 of this source. Historian Giancarlo Casale mentions this as another victory of Sefer Reis against the Portuguese under the command of Christovao Pereira Homem.

As for the last page, again, this event is described in detail by historian Giancarlo Casale. See page 62 here where Giancarlo Casale states that the Portuguese were defeated under their commander Luiz Figueira.

These pages all satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY, they are clearly not a hoax and are all supported by their in page references which are all WP:RS, this is clearly just an example of WP:JDLI. I’d also like to add that Turkish historians are allowed to be cited on Wikipedia per WP:NOENG, I find it strange that the user questions Turkish historians but not Portuguese historians (see here), especially coming from a user whose edits are mostly related to Portuguese history. Again clearly a case of POV pushing and WP:JDLI. Regards Kabz15 (talk)
 * CommentI passed several of these at NPP. I don’t have time to write at length now but in my view the articles are not hoaxes. There is some doubt as to their notability as individual battles in my mind, but not strong enough to AfD or draftify them. My hope was that the Ottoman and Portugal WikiProjects would develop them. They are supported by sources but looking more closely now I am less sure about how reliable those sources are. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically it is odd that the sourcing is so predominantly Turkish, which makes me wonder whether errors by one historian have perhaps been erroneously replicated in later works. I think tagging for factual accuracy is fine but I’m not persuaded that the best thing to do here is delete. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I similarly saw some of these at NPP, and reviewed them. I am also somewhat concerned about the reliability, especially given how some of the sources (See below) are obviously biased. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  10:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * have you by chance looked, and I do mean actually looked, into the links I provided, since you say you are "unsure"? I'm confident it will help your case. You hoped the Portugal WikiProject would help develop them, but see how the creator responded when I tried to. Make no mistake however, because as far as the first three pages are concerned, there's no room for "in my view" here, the events they describe are entirely ficticious, no more, no less. The latter two are clearly a case of one user trying to pass very small things as very big things, that would be more conveniently contained into one single page elsewhere as recommended, however the creator insists on their verifyability and dumping random sources onto them when its their notability that's in dispute.Wareno (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm only surprised to see that Turkish historians are this inclined to make up battles. Let's see what other authors say:


 * For Battle of Ash-Shihr no such thing happened. As told to the user, it is not in accordance to any evidence, the Portuguese never attacked the city in 1531, the Portuguese commander Manuel de Vasconcelos only attacked it once in 1532 and the Ottomans were defeated, as can be read here for example, but the user has aggressively rejected any input.


 * For Siege of Jeddah (1520), the Portuguese commander Diogo Lopes de Sequeira sailed a fleet into the Red Sea in 1520 but never even reached Jeddah as can be fully read here. The British scholar R. B. Serjeant wrote in page 171 of his The Portuguese Off the South Arabian Coast: Hadrami Chronicles: "This is the expedition of Diogo Lopes de Sequeira. Gois, gives the composition of the Portuguese fleet as 26 sail, comprising 11 large ships (naos), 2 galleons, 5 galleys, 4 square-rigged ships, 2 brigantines, and 2 caravels. (Some of the aforegoing are only dictionary translations.) The ‘very large galliot’ seems to be what Barros, ill. iii. 10, calls um bargantim per a recados (a brigantine for provisions and equipment). They did not land at al-'Ârah, but the San Antonio struck a reef there (Castanheda, v. 23, and F. Alvarez, Verdadeira Informaçâo . . . (Lisboa, 1889), p. 5). Presents intended for the Emperor of Abyssinia were lost with this vessel, which caused the envoys trouble and embarrassment when they reached the Abyssinian court. De Sequeira had been ordered to sail to Jeddah, but abandoned the attempt on account of contrary winds, and the Portuguese then stood across to Massawa. After leaving Massawa they burnt what there was to be found on Dahlak".


 * For Expedition to Kamaran, it's a myth that the Portuguese ever occupied Kamaran Island. Turkish sources fail to mention the names of any Portuguese commanders, casualties, or their strenght which obviously isn't possible. All this user does is push sources in Turkish which fall very short of WP:RELIABILITY and WP:NPOV.
 * As for the last two pages, I'll leave the contributors to decide if they are noteworthy enough to keep. The user seems to think I challenge their veracity, which I don't, I only challenge the veracity of the first three.


 * I also wonder if this user isn't a sockpuppet of this user due to their very similar editing patterns. Wareno (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I’ve already mentioned that for the siege of Jeddah in 1520 other than the source from a Turkish historian which is admissible per WP:NOENG this source which is entirely focused on the failed Portuguese dominions in the Red Sea states that the Portuguese made an attempt to attack Jeddah that year in 1520 “attempt to attack Jeddah”. This same source states that an attack was made on Ash-Shihr in 1531 which is also supported by a source by a Turkish historian which again is admissible. I’ve already posted the link in my previous comment where you can access the pdf. Claiming that the Kamaran expedition is a myth is a WP:FRINGETHEORY, the page is supported by a source from Turkish historian Yilmaz Oztuna. As for claiming Turkish historians are making up battles that just sounds absurd, you are obviously not even checking the sources I’m providing you that support the dates of the events since you keep on repeating the same thing over and over again about these battles not happening despite already being given valid evidence to support the attack in 1531 and the attack in 1520. Also the source that I’ve provided that support these dates is very relevant and entirely focused on the failed Portuguese dominions in the Red Sea. As for accusing me of being a sockpuppet of another user your personal attack had been noted. Regards Kabz15 (talk)


 * Comment Taken a look at the totality of the page creations from them (can be seen here), of the 96 articles they have made ~90 of them are related to battles, of which about half or two-thirds of these are between Muslim and Christian nations/peoples; notably, not a single time in his written articles do I see the Christians win one of these battles. Cannot speak to if this is a failing of the English Wikipedia that we ignored these battles before, or a sign of something else, necessarily. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  09:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Source Comment: Yilmaz Oztuna, cited extensively by the user's articles and defended above, appears to have helped write a book (or at least a chapter thereof, here) in which the Armenian genocide is denied. Going to go out on a limb and assume they are probably biased on other matters involving Turkey and its Ottoman forefathers... -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  10:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: To answer your question I am a user who is interested in Islamic military history and I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia by expanding this topic. I have created battles against Christian and Muslim nations, what I contribute to is what I am interested in and if I don’t create battles in which Christian nations have won then that means that it is not what I am interested in researching which is completely fine. I’d appreciate it if we stay on topic and address the verifiability of these articles. I’d like to say that I’ve already made a very reasonable explanation. The pages that cite Turkish historians are all supported by at least one English source that support the fact that these events took place. The Armenian genocide is a completely different topic to a battle that is supported by sources other than Yilmaz Oztuna, besides that he is a historian and as already mentioned Turkish historians are allowed to be cited on Wikipedia per WP:NOENG. I find it strange to question the usage of Turkish historians when the user who requested the deletion seems to think that Turkish historians should not be used while himself using Portuguese historians who lived in the 16th century, this seems to be very biased on his part. The user also created a similar page, the verifiability of which is highly questionable. Again I’d appreciate if we could stay on topic here and focus on the verifiability of these articles which is undisputedly supported by in page references, these articles are clearly not hoaxes as the user claims. I think we should also address the baseless arguments of the user who claims that these events are hoaxes despite the fact that every page is supported by at least more than one source. I have addressed his claims that no attack happened at Ash Shihr in 1531 or Jeddah at 1520 by providing an extremely relevant source which is solely focused on the failed Portuguese dominions in the Red Sea. Despite providing this proof the user just seems to ignore it and repeat the same argument that I’ve already addressed. Thanks Kabz15 (talk)
 * If theese are indeed based on a source that denies the Armenian genocide, then obviously Delete. Maybe get some admins to look at the involved users? Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello thanks for participating in this discussion. These pages are not based on a source that denies the Armenian genocide, the sources in question by Yilmaz Oztuna do not deny the Armenian genocide and there are other sources cited on these pages that are not published by him. Moreover a deletion discussion is about the article itself, we should address the articles and users’ arguments not the users themselves per WP:ATTP. Thanks Kabz15 (talk)
 * Delete per nominator and after a deep research on the author that Iazyges was suspected of being an Armenian genocide denier, I found out that Yılmaz Öztuna is definitly not reliable (I will open a request in WP:RSN to see if other editors are agreeing with me). The Turkish historian Dogan Gurpinar (an actual historian) said about Yılmaz in his paper Double Discourses and Romantic Nationalismp:59 that "..Yilmaz Öztuna, an amateur historian with nationalist and right/center-right dispositions." and in the notes he wrote that Öztuna was debunked by the historian Ali Birinci in his work Müverrih-i Mader-zadın Fülannamesi -Suratrat (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Suratrat, Yılmaz Öztuna’s work is not the only cited reference on these pages, if you’d like to discuss removing this historians work from these pages, well then that sounds reasonable, however deleting an entire page based on a single historian who is only one out of other cited sources on these pages does not sound like a good idea. There are still other reliable sources that support these events taking place even if Yılmaz Öztuna’s work is removed. Regards Kabz15 (talk)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to update, I’ve added fresh references to most pages in order to avoid the possible problem with Yılmaz Öztuna, there isn’t a single page out of these that rely solely on his work. Regards Kabz15 (talk)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per the above discussion and a likely WP:CIVILPOV violation. BrigadierG (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely back the above notion.Wareno (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * comment no opinion on the articles themselves, but a couple of delete arguments are invalid. If one source is wrong and biased in some subject it does not follow that citing them is a reason to delete an article on another subject. That most sources are Turkish and in Turkish language should not be detrimental, the subject is related to Turkish history, it is normal to have mostly Turkish sources. We're not deleting e.g. 2022 Los Angeles Chargers season just because all sources are from the USA, are we? - Nabla (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * to be clear my concern about all the sources I could find being Turkish is that these battles took place between the Ottomans and Portugal, so you would expect, at least, some Portuguese sources. However, as far as I can see, there aren’t any. Also the wars between the Ottomans and the Portuguese are very well documented indeed, and covered in many general histories of the period. That being the case, the battles ought to be mentioned in English, French and other sources, e.g the Cambridge History of Islam or any of these books, but they’re not. So my conclusion is either a. they happened but were so minor no serious History of the period mentions them, hence not notable, or b. They were invented or misdescribed by one Turkish author (Öztuna?) and then subsequent Turkish authors, relying on his account, reproduced his mistake in their own books. If literally no historians at all writing about this topic have covered these alleged events, except Öztuna and a couple of other Turkish writers, then I don’t think we have a solid enough basis for including them (i.e. a couple of weeks in from my earlier comments above I’m leaning more strongly towards deletion). Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Hello Mccapra, just noting that Öztuna did not comment on the event and his work is not relied on by the cited historian on the Siege of Jeddah (1520) page. Moreover, regarding your comment on Portuguese historians, Casale who is cited on Battle of Kamaran and Battle of Bab al-Mandab relies on Portuguese works. Also I’ve checked the dates of the Turkish sources that support an Ottoman victory on the Battle of Ash-Shihr page and two of them predate Öztuna’s work. Regards Kabz15 (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you that’s very helpful. I’m not !voting on this one a# I’m really unsure about it. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. That is a valid argument, then. Nabla (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist in light of additional sources found. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to update I’ve added three additional references on the Battle of Bab al-Mandab page and another three additional references on the Battle of Kamaran page. Kabz15 (talk)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete while it's possible there may be an article here, I'm confident that the easiest way to find that article would be to blow these up and start again. Not your siblings&#39; deletionist (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looking at all the articles, they containt good sources and do not seem to be hoaxes as is suggested by the person wanting to have the pages deleted. Their reason for deletion seems to be a discrimination because they say that "sources which are mostly in Turkish anyway". Also a closer look shows that this person has only nominated these articles on battles or wars where Portugal has been defeated, while they seem to be personally involved articles of battles/wars where Portugal was victorious.--Gazozlu (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.