![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Expedition to Mostaganem (1558) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 October 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
@ History21st: Regarding this revert:
both countries participated in an attack on the same cityNo, they did not. 2)
In 1558, they were planning to attack Algiers, however, after the assassination of Moroccan sultan, Mohammed SheykhThat doesn't make sense since Mohammed ash-Sheikh died in 1557. 3)
in this battle, Morocco's support was more a diplomatic support than a military oneIn this battle, there was no Moroccan involvement in any way, shape, or form. 4)
due to the fact that the vast majority of the attacking army were spaniards, according to spanish sources(see link)5) There is nothing in that source that suggests that either the soldiers or the commanders were not Spaniards.
I've said they both attacked the city years earlier, that means before 1558, try to read the comment well before answeringI know what you said and it is as wrong today as it was yesterday, because the Spaniards were the only ones who attacked Mostaganem in 1543 and 1547. So, next time you feel like questioning someone else's reading comprehension, I suggest you take a long, hard look at yours first. 2)
there was an agreement to attack algiers before Sheykh's death, it was planned to take place during that same year(1558), but his assassination was the main reason why the Oran governor decided to attack Mostaganem insteadI have no problem mentioning (in passing) the fact that prior to his assassination, the Saadian king, who preferred the Spanish rule over the Ottomans' one, was willing to pay the expenses of the Spaniards and hand over his son as a guarantee. 3)
Morocco can be removed from the belligerents section if you likeIt will removed, not because that's what I like, but because it doesn't meet policy requirements. 4)
majority were spaniards, that's what I saidExactly. What was the purpose of this information and what makes you believe that some of them weren't?
It has nothing to do with the 1543/47 battlesMore importantly, it has nothing to do with this expedition. I'm so glad you got there in the end. 2)
it's not a matter of preferenceThe context is best left to the reliable sources that deal specifically with this expedition. 3)
ask me a 3rd timeClearly, we're done here. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
To sum up:
1. With regard to the allegation that there was a Moroccan involvement in this expedition:
both countries participated in an attackis baseless and irrelevant.
the vast majority of the attacking army were spaniardsis baseless and misleading.
Morocco's support was more a diplomatic support than a military oneis baseless and ridiculous.
Consequently, all that nonsense about Morocco's fictitious involvement in this expedition does not belong in the article and will be removed.
2. With regard to the unjustified removal (under false pretences) of sourced content and sources:
Therefore, the deleted content will be restored. M.Bitton ( talk) 22:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Expedition to Mostaganem (1558) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 October 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
@ History21st: Regarding this revert:
both countries participated in an attack on the same cityNo, they did not. 2)
In 1558, they were planning to attack Algiers, however, after the assassination of Moroccan sultan, Mohammed SheykhThat doesn't make sense since Mohammed ash-Sheikh died in 1557. 3)
in this battle, Morocco's support was more a diplomatic support than a military oneIn this battle, there was no Moroccan involvement in any way, shape, or form. 4)
due to the fact that the vast majority of the attacking army were spaniards, according to spanish sources(see link)5) There is nothing in that source that suggests that either the soldiers or the commanders were not Spaniards.
I've said they both attacked the city years earlier, that means before 1558, try to read the comment well before answeringI know what you said and it is as wrong today as it was yesterday, because the Spaniards were the only ones who attacked Mostaganem in 1543 and 1547. So, next time you feel like questioning someone else's reading comprehension, I suggest you take a long, hard look at yours first. 2)
there was an agreement to attack algiers before Sheykh's death, it was planned to take place during that same year(1558), but his assassination was the main reason why the Oran governor decided to attack Mostaganem insteadI have no problem mentioning (in passing) the fact that prior to his assassination, the Saadian king, who preferred the Spanish rule over the Ottomans' one, was willing to pay the expenses of the Spaniards and hand over his son as a guarantee. 3)
Morocco can be removed from the belligerents section if you likeIt will removed, not because that's what I like, but because it doesn't meet policy requirements. 4)
majority were spaniards, that's what I saidExactly. What was the purpose of this information and what makes you believe that some of them weren't?
It has nothing to do with the 1543/47 battlesMore importantly, it has nothing to do with this expedition. I'm so glad you got there in the end. 2)
it's not a matter of preferenceThe context is best left to the reliable sources that deal specifically with this expedition. 3)
ask me a 3rd timeClearly, we're done here. M.Bitton ( talk) 23:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
To sum up:
1. With regard to the allegation that there was a Moroccan involvement in this expedition:
both countries participated in an attackis baseless and irrelevant.
the vast majority of the attacking army were spaniardsis baseless and misleading.
Morocco's support was more a diplomatic support than a military oneis baseless and ridiculous.
Consequently, all that nonsense about Morocco's fictitious involvement in this expedition does not belong in the article and will be removed.
2. With regard to the unjustified removal (under false pretences) of sourced content and sources:
Therefore, the deleted content will be restored. M.Bitton ( talk) 22:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)