- 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 delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Siege of Jeddah (1520) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per User: Liz:
"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."
Done.
The article claims a supposed Portuguese attack on Jeddah in 1520, defeated by the Ottomans, which never actually took place. It's part of a series of bogus pages created by the same user.
As Robert Kerr wrote here:
"After Sequeira had dispatched the homeward bound trade of the season, under the command of Fernan Perez de Andrada, he sailed on the 13th of February 1520, from Goa with 24 sail of ships of various sizes, having on board 1800 Portuguese soldiers and an equal number of Malabars and Canarins, bound for the Red Sea. Off the coast of Aden his ship struck on a rock and split in pieces; but the men were all saved and Sequeira the governor went into the galleon of Pedro de Faria. A Moorish ship was taken at the entrance into the Red Sea, from which they learnt that there were six Turksh gallies at Jiddah with 1200 men, intending to proceed against Aden. The weather prevented the Portuguese from going in the quest of the Turkish squadron, and in fact it would have been no purpose; as on hearing that the Portuguese were in these seas, the Turks hauled their gallies on shore."
Western Arabia & the Red Sea, published by the UK Naval Intelligence Division says here that:
"Later Portuguese expeditions were sent primarily to investigate or interrupt Turkish naval preparations to regain sea-power. Diogo Lopes de Sequeira ventured into the Red Sea in 1520 but did not meet the Turks. At Massawa he landed an envoy to the Negus, who wanted the Portuguese to build forts there and at Zeila and Suakin."
The British scholar R. B. Serjeant wrote in The Portuguese Off the South Arabian Coast page 171: 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".
And finally, I'd like to present the testimony of the Portuguese chronicler Fernão Lopes de Castanheda, who recorded the early history of the Portuguese in Asia, and wrote here: Capítulo XXIII. De como indo ho governador pera a cidade de Iuda se lhe perdeu a nao em q hia. E de como não podendo ir a Iuda foy surgir á ilha de Maçua meaning: "Chapter 23. On how the governor lost the carrack on which he travelled as we went towards Jeddah. And not being able to go to Jeddah called at the island of Massawa".
One of the sources cited by the creator says: "Portuguese ships had once appeared in the waters off Jeddah in 1505 and in 1520 they were sighted there anew". Nothing about any battle. Wareno ( talk) 01:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Saudi Arabia, and Portugal. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 03:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete As Wareno has argued quite persuasively, there was no siege of Jeddah by the Portuguese in 1520. Thanks for the excellent research. Cullen328 ( talk) 04:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete (or speedy) as a hoax. ( t · c) buidhe 06:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. - Suratrat ( talk) 21:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Clearly false. - Indy beetle ( talk) 22:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - All of the preceding, largely unsubstantiated delete votes, seem to be arbitrarily convinced that this is a hoax, and fail to address that some kind of attempted attack by the Portuguese does seem to have taken place against Jeddah in 1520 as stated by multiple sources. If you can present sources with conflicting information, that does not mean that the article should just be deleted, rather you should continue
the discussion on the talk page of the article and try to reach some kind of consensus on there about how the article should be written. It does not seem right to use a deletion nomination as some kind of substitute for lack of participation in the articles talk page.--
Gazozlu (
talk)
14:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I hardly see the use in having a "Not-a-Siege of Jeddah (1520)" article with a paragraph detailing how some ships moved around one day on the Red Sea. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
15:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- It does not seem like the sources cited in the article were actually read by the participants here. Gazozlu ( talk) 22:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I hardly see the use in having a "Not-a-Siege of Jeddah (1520)" article with a paragraph detailing how some ships moved around one day on the Red Sea. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
15:10, 5 October 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.
- 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 delete. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Siege of Jeddah (1520) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per User: Liz:
"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."
Done.
The article claims a supposed Portuguese attack on Jeddah in 1520, defeated by the Ottomans, which never actually took place. It's part of a series of bogus pages created by the same user.
As Robert Kerr wrote here:
"After Sequeira had dispatched the homeward bound trade of the season, under the command of Fernan Perez de Andrada, he sailed on the 13th of February 1520, from Goa with 24 sail of ships of various sizes, having on board 1800 Portuguese soldiers and an equal number of Malabars and Canarins, bound for the Red Sea. Off the coast of Aden his ship struck on a rock and split in pieces; but the men were all saved and Sequeira the governor went into the galleon of Pedro de Faria. A Moorish ship was taken at the entrance into the Red Sea, from which they learnt that there were six Turksh gallies at Jiddah with 1200 men, intending to proceed against Aden. The weather prevented the Portuguese from going in the quest of the Turkish squadron, and in fact it would have been no purpose; as on hearing that the Portuguese were in these seas, the Turks hauled their gallies on shore."
Western Arabia & the Red Sea, published by the UK Naval Intelligence Division says here that:
"Later Portuguese expeditions were sent primarily to investigate or interrupt Turkish naval preparations to regain sea-power. Diogo Lopes de Sequeira ventured into the Red Sea in 1520 but did not meet the Turks. At Massawa he landed an envoy to the Negus, who wanted the Portuguese to build forts there and at Zeila and Suakin."
The British scholar R. B. Serjeant wrote in The Portuguese Off the South Arabian Coast page 171: 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".
And finally, I'd like to present the testimony of the Portuguese chronicler Fernão Lopes de Castanheda, who recorded the early history of the Portuguese in Asia, and wrote here: Capítulo XXIII. De como indo ho governador pera a cidade de Iuda se lhe perdeu a nao em q hia. E de como não podendo ir a Iuda foy surgir á ilha de Maçua meaning: "Chapter 23. On how the governor lost the carrack on which he travelled as we went towards Jeddah. And not being able to go to Jeddah called at the island of Massawa".
One of the sources cited by the creator says: "Portuguese ships had once appeared in the waters off Jeddah in 1505 and in 1520 they were sighted there anew". Nothing about any battle. Wareno ( talk) 01:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Saudi Arabia, and Portugal. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 03:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete As Wareno has argued quite persuasively, there was no siege of Jeddah by the Portuguese in 1520. Thanks for the excellent research. Cullen328 ( talk) 04:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete (or speedy) as a hoax. ( t · c) buidhe 06:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. - Suratrat ( talk) 21:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Clearly false. - Indy beetle ( talk) 22:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - All of the preceding, largely unsubstantiated delete votes, seem to be arbitrarily convinced that this is a hoax, and fail to address that some kind of attempted attack by the Portuguese does seem to have taken place against Jeddah in 1520 as stated by multiple sources. If you can present sources with conflicting information, that does not mean that the article should just be deleted, rather you should continue
the discussion on the talk page of the article and try to reach some kind of consensus on there about how the article should be written. It does not seem right to use a deletion nomination as some kind of substitute for lack of participation in the articles talk page.--
Gazozlu (
talk)
14:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I hardly see the use in having a "Not-a-Siege of Jeddah (1520)" article with a paragraph detailing how some ships moved around one day on the Red Sea. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
15:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- It does not seem like the sources cited in the article were actually read by the participants here. Gazozlu ( talk) 22:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
- I hardly see the use in having a "Not-a-Siege of Jeddah (1520)" article with a paragraph detailing how some ships moved around one day on the Red Sea. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
15:10, 5 October 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.