- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 00:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Fort Al Jalali edit
.jpg)
- ... that Fort Al Jalali (pictured) was built in Muscat, Oman by the Portuguese after attacks by the Turks?
5x expanded by Aymatth2 (talk). Self nominated at 01:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC).
- Expanded 5x in last two days, cited inline in the article (third paragraph under Portuguese stronghold), citation checked. I have a little concern with NPOV in the article, such as "...Muscat their base for a ruthless conquest..." (emphasis mine), but I'm not sure how much that is taken into account for DYK...
Aymatth2 I suggest changing the link from [[Turkish people|Turks]] to [[Ottoman Empire|Ottomans]], one because Turkish people is in dispute at the moment but more so because the Ottomans where the ones who actually did the attacking (as opposed to modern day Turks)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- How about ALT1 below? Probably more accurate too. The forces were led by Ottoman commanders but probably the soldiers were a mix of Turks, Egyptians, Syrians etc. On "ruthless conquest", the source reads: "Their conquests were accompanied with unprecedented levels of brutality and random cruelty: thousands of innocents were murdered, prisoners had their ears and noses chopped off and some coastal settlements, such as Qalhat, were so thoroughly destroyed that they never recovered." I think it is reasonable to give some sense of it, with the term "ruthless conquest". This describes the fact, but does not comment on it.
- ALT1 ... that Fort Al Jalali (pictured) was built in Muscat, Oman by the Portuguese after attacks by Ottoman forces?
- The source describes "unprecedented levels of brutality and random cruelty". Other sources use similar language: "the Portuguese ... slaughtered indiscriminately all the men, women and children they could reach." To me "...used Muscat as their base for a ruthless conquest..." is descriptive, not judgmental. I am stumped. What would be a more neutral adjective that would convey the nature of the conquest? Aymatth2 (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- What about if you said that in the article (maybe a subordinate clause as part of that sentence), an unabridged version definitely? Alternatively, if there is an article/section which deals with that Ottoman campaign directly you could link to it and use similar words, or you could brutal using that reference. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'd do it myself, but I can't access the book. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- The source describes "unprecedented levels of brutality and random cruelty". Other sources use similar language: "the Portuguese ... slaughtered indiscriminately all the men, women and children they could reach." To me "...used Muscat as their base for a ruthless conquest..." is descriptive, not judgmental. I am stumped. What would be a more neutral adjective that would convey the nature of the conquest? Aymatth2 (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have reworked the section to avoid the adjective "ruthless" and to state explicitly what happened: "the Portuguese mutilated their captives, killed the inhabitants and then despoiled and burned the town." This describes negative behavior, but is neutral since it gives the facts without passing judgement. It all happened long ago in 1507, when life was nasty, brutish and short. I can't see the modern Portuguese taking offense. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, as that was my only concern this is fine to go, though it would be better if you could cite that sentence. It's not about being fair to modern Portuguese it's about being fair and neutral to history, but after seeing that sources use similar wording it's just a matter of finding the right wording and source. But done now, that's for being willing to talk it through. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
