Talk:Expedition to Mostaganem (1558)

May 2018

@History21st: Regarding this revert:

• You deleted the reliable source that I introduced and claimed (in the edit summary) that no sources had been brought. Can you explain why?
• You restored the original research that claims that Morocco was involved in this expedition. Do you have any reliable source to back up such a claim? M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

actually, both countries participated in an attack on the same city, but this was a couple of years earlier.In 1558, they were planning to attack Algiers, however, after the assassination of Moroccan sultan, Mohammed Sheykh, by Ottoman spies, this plan has been abandoned. The Spanish governor of Oran, then, decided to attack once again Mostaganem. anyway, in this battle, Morocco's support was more a diplomatic support than a military one, due to the fact that the vast majority of the attacking army were spaniards, according to spanish sources(see link).

https://image.ibb.co/nhepqy/army2.png

https://image.ibb.co/fntUOJ/moroccan_spanish.png --History21st (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• @History21st: Please, try to indent your comments.
• 1) both countries participated in an attack on the same city No, they did not. 2) In 1558, they were planning to attack Algiers, however, after the assassination of Moroccan sultan, Mohammed Sheykh That 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 one In 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.
• This one is important. You still have not explained why you deleted the reliable source that I introduced and claimed (in the edit summary) that no sources had been brought. M.Bitton (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've said they both attacked the city years earlier, that means before 1558, try to read the comment well before answering. 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 instead. therefore I think The battle should not be taken out of its context(Morocco can be removed from the belligerents section if you like) 3. majority were spaniards, that's what I said. --History21st (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)--

• 1) I've said they both attacked the city years earlier, that means before 1558, try to read the comment well before answering I 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 instead I 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 like It 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 said Exactly. What was the purpose of this information and what makes you believe that some of them weren't?
• I have asked you (twice) to explain your action, and I expected you to at least acknowledge it. Ignoring it won't make it go away, if anything, it will leave it open to interpretation and can potentially make it worse. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

1.No. It seems you don't know what you're talking about. the attack occured a couple of years later(around 1550), and the Moroccan army had managed to capture Mostaganem. some sources say with the help of Oran governor. It has nothing to do with the 1543/47 battles.

2. there was an Ottoman invasion of Fez in mid 16th century to restore the Wattasid dynasty. that's the reason why Sheikh decided to ally with Spain. it's not a matter of preference.

3. go ahead and erase everything, like you wanted to do, and write one morning the spanish governor woke up and decided to invade the ottoman empire.

4. ask me a 3rd time. --History21st (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

1) It has nothing to do with the 1543/47 battles More 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 preference The context is best left to the reliable sources that deal specifically with this expedition. 3) ask me a 3rd time Clearly, we're done here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

well, now you know that there was a battle other than the 2 mentioned in the article, and all of them are part of the context.

2) I answered you, at least, unlike you, in another article where you just decided to ignore the discussions because you had no sources to bring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by History21st (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

To sum up:

1. With regard to the allegation that there was a Moroccan involvement in this expedition:

• The claim that both countries participated in an attack is baseless and irrelevant.
• The claim that the vast majority of the attacking army were spaniards is baseless and misleading.
• The claim that Morocco's support was more a diplomatic support than a military one is 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:

• The editor has made it quite clear that they have no intention of acknowledging it, let alone explain why they did it.

Therefore, the deleted content will be restored. M.Bitton (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

sorry was off for a while, I don't agree with these modifications, I think that in the belligerent's box Morocco should be put under "support", a diplomatic support is also a support. the rest is background info for this battle that should not be deleted in my opinion --History21st (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You should take a look at this source : [1]. there si no mention of any involvement of Morrocco. This one explicitly states that "From the late fifteenth century onwards, the mediterranean became a scene of imperial and confessional competition between the Spanish Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire". No mention of any involvement of Morocco either.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems you know nothing about the subject. as Morocco has conquered the city just couple of months prior to this battle. in Mellila's siege of 1774, UK is mentioned as support country even though it did not participate directly to the battle nor did it deliver arms to the Moroccan army. for the rest, it is useful as it is background info--History21st (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Rehashing the same baseless claims over and over again is just a waste of everyone's time, and will not change the fact that there was no moroccan involvement in this expedition. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)