Talk:Battle of the Masts

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / Roman & Byzantine / Medieval / Early Muslim

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Crescent????

The Crescent symbol does not represent Islam. It's the symbol that represent the Turks and only became widely use during the reign of Seljuk Dynasty in the Middle East around 11th century. Prior to that, Muslim's army carry a black banner to battle. The current use of star and crescent in the Islamic country's flag today doesn't have anything to do with being an Islamic country as much as paying homage to the Ottoman Empire, the last Islamic empire in the world. 202.60.56.232 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell it is ....????

muslims had no navy up to 650 A.D how could this naval battle could took place in 634 A.D ?????? Mohammad Adil 12:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did

Of course they did. Syllaeum was not a total crushing defeat. Besides, Arabs were excellent ship builders - they did give rise to the empire of Carthage. So they must have had a naval fleet. Tourskin.

Oh wait a minute. Damn you're right. What the hell? Vandalism has occured. The date is definetly not 634 AD. It should be after 677 AD becuase thats when Syllaeum took place. Tourskin.

"Empire of Carthage" - you mean the Phoenician Carthaginian Empire? They were not Arabs.104.169.39.45 (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed

Well I changed the date to > 677 becuase that would make the campaign box look stupid if an earlier battle was placed later in the series. I looked at some websites and it claimed a loss of 500 Greek ships. This is highly unlikely, considering the Byzantines were able to use their navy at 717 AD again and that Syllaeum had defeated the Arabs. Tourskin 17:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need 50mg Adrenaline here - STAT!

Even my stubs have more info than this one. We can't assert anything from this article. All we know is that there was a naval battle. We don't even know who won - the Byzantines couldn't have lost because they had a naval victory before and after this one and the Arabs couldn't have lost because they had the ability to ferry in troops in teh second siege of constantinople Tourskin 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The website referenced calls it 'Zat Al-Sawari', but the article is 'that'. Is it a transliterational mistake or are both right? Bl a st 07.04.07 0658 (UTC)

That (as in english words that , this) is a correct native spell , Zat also a correct spell if you ain't a native arabic speaker , because they can not spell Th easily . Some translators use Z rather than Th , it's not recommanded Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 06:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

As "That Al-Sawari" is not a place name, shouldn't the article's title be the translated English form, i.e. "Battle of the Masts" as per WP:ENGLISH? That's how I've seen it in English books, at any rate, and I seriously doubt anyone in the non-Arab speaking world would use the Arab term. Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup performed

Removed most POV and unreferenced material (although I didn't remove the quoted text, hoping that someone will soon provide a proper reference). Alleged numbers of combatants and casualties can be brought back to the article, if properly referenced (Arab-only forums, and forums in general, are not considered reliable references). Same applies to the battle details. Dipa1965 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left the correspondence between Umar and Muawiyah in its place but we also need a reference there. Which Arab source this text is quoted from? Is it a reliable translation? Dipa1965 (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just found that all unreferenced stuff was copy-pasted from Mukarram Ahmed, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Anmol Publications, 2005. Not a scholarly work it seems. Additionally, I removed the aforementioned correspondence. It is irrelevant to the battle. Dipa1965 (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were the numbers come from ??? 200 and 500 ships ? No reference at all, I propose to be replaced by 'unknown'. As usual, Byzantine strength, in case of a defeat, is again exaggerated.Oberoon (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These made up numbers were introduced with this edit. Removing.--Dipa1965 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]