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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen 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.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen 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).
Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
How would this be a Kathiri victory if the Portuguese achieved their objective of sacking the city? Javext (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Abo Yemen Hello! This sack happened in 1523 and the battles you mentioned happened many years after so, unless there were other confronts in this particular city before 1523, it was the first time and in the battle of 1548, which was a Portuguese victory, they didn't occupy it. [1]
Please provide a reliable secondary source stating the objective of the Portuguese was to occupy the city. Throughout the Indian Ocean campaigns you will find many cities that were sacked by the Portuguese but they didn't occupy them as it was not worth it, for example, Siege of Bintain, Siege of Johor (1587), Battle of Barawa, etc.. Javext (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
There aren't any sources (that I am aware of) stating that the objective of the Portuguese was to sack the city, though.
Also, the Kathiri sultanate managed to fend off the Portuguese invaders, which means that they technically own the battle. Abo Yemen✉ 14:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The objective of the attack, according to the Portuguese commander, was to recover the body and properties of the Portuguese merchant that had been abducted, not to occupy the city.
I have doubts they were able to fend off the "Portuguese invaders" since the sources stating that "The Portuguese forces withdrew on the third day after the arrival of the Al-Mishqas army led by Atif bin Dahdah to support the people of the city of Al-Shihr" are quite sketchy from my point of view. For instance, it's all in arabic (which could mean nothing), the website is full of ads and in general doesn't look well or like a reliable source. If you could prove to me that those arabic sources are reliable, I would be thankful. All sources I have read that talk about this battle do not state that at all.
Also, those sources correctly state that the objective of the attack was to recover the properties of the portuguese merchant, yet they also say, "the Portuguese forces, who aimed to invade the city of Al-Shihr to cut off the resistance's supply lines in Aden". So, which version is it? Javext (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
"according to the Portuguese commander, was to recover the body and properties of the Portuguese merchant that had been abducted, not to occupy the city."
According to the Prince of the Sultanate, there was no body nor any properties of any so called merchant. Plus i haven't seen any sources that say that the Portuguese managed to recover the so claimed body and properties of the so called merchant, which means that the portuguese have failed their mission.
Claiming that the given sources are unreliable because you do not understand them (when you could have right clicked and then click on "Translate to English") and because the website is full of ads is just a bad way to discredit a source. I have opened the Portuguese version of this article and tried looking for why did the portuguese retreat when they have apparently won the battle and started looting the city and there was nothing explaining that there.
"Also, those sources correctly state that the objective of the attack was to recover the properties of the portuguese merchant,"
How did you know that the sources "correctly state" the objective of the attack?
"yet they also say, 'the Portuguese forces, who aimed to invade the city of Al-Shihr to cut off the resistance's supply lines in Aden'. So, which version is it?"
Here on wikipedia, we are supposed to show all the POVs given in all sources out there. that's WP:NPOV 101 Abo Yemen✉ 10:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
