• Requests: John Lopez (pirate), Lords of the Spanish Main, Benjamin Bennett (governor) (see What links here), Thomas Walker (pirate), Richard Bishop (pirate)
• Expand: Charles Vane, Edward England, Emanuel Wynn, George Lowther, Pierre Le Grand, Roche Braziliano, Thomas Cocklyn, Woodes Rogers, Piracy in the Indian Ocean
• Verify: Daniel Johnson (pirate), Henry Jennings, François l'Olonnais, Olivier Levasseur, Edward Davis (buccaneer)
• Copyedit: Golden Age of Piracy
• Images: MV Delight, MV Powerful,

Arab world Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Berbers Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Berbers 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.BerbersWikipedia:WikiProject BerbersTemplate:WikiProject BerbersBerbers articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: African / Middle East / Ottoman / Early Modern

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  African military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Ottoman military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Islam: Muslim history Mid‑importance

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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Muslim history task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

On 28 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Ottoman Algeria to Regency of Algiers. The result of the discussion was moved.

Section sizes Section size for Regency of Algiers (54 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 9,985 9,985 History 58 45,664 16th century: Establishment 1,376 13,072 Barbarossa brothers 5,654 5,654 Beylerbeylik period (1519–1587) 916 6,042 Algerian expansion 1,994 1,994 Gradual autonomy 3,132 3,132 17th century: Golden age 34 6,676 Pashalik period (1587–1659) 1,691 6,642 Janissary insubordination 2,307 2,307 Corsair tai'fa 2,644 2,644 Military republic (1659–1710) 41 4,676 Agha regime in 1659 2,778 2,778 Deylik period in 1671 1,857 1,857 Foreign relations and privateering 1,720 7,715 Europe 3,394 3,394 Maghreb 2,601 2,601 18th century: Dey-Pashas of Algiers 1,015 7,737 Strengthened authority 3,471 3,471 Mohammed ben-Osman Pasha's rule 3,251 3,251 19th century: Fall of the Regency 42 5,730 Internal crisis 1,478 1,478 Barbary Wars 2,714 2,714 French invasion 1,496 1,496 Administration 722 14,305 Stratocracy 3,662 11,745 Dey of Algiers 3,250 3,250 Cabinet 1,618 1,618 Diwân council 3,215 3,215 Territorial management 1,838 1,838 Economy 15 21,011 Slave ransoms 4,712 4,712 Royalties 4,302 4,302 Trade 15 5,274 External trade 3,597 3,597 Internal trade 1,662 1,662 Taxation 1,725 1,725 Agriculture 3,057 3,057 Crafts 1,926 1,926 Society 15 6,416 Urban population 2,320 2,320 Social structures 4,081 4,081 Culture 12 13,266 Education 2,148 2,148 Architecture 5,928 5,928 Arts 14 5,178 Crafts 3,400 3,400 Music 1,764 1,764 Legacy 3,869 3,869 See also 1,190 1,190 Notes 6,563 6,563 References 15 56,096 Citations 34 34 Bibliography 56,047 56,047 Total 178,365 178,365

Show citation statistics for CS1 and CS2 citation elements in Regency of Algiers.     Stats: unnamed refs = 0; named refs = 0; self closed = 0. Click show for details.   reference info for Regency of Algiers unnamed refs 0 named refs 0 self closed 0 cs1 templates 137 cs2 templates 1 sfn templates 528 refbegin templates 1 use xxx dates dmy cs1|2 dmy dates 1 cs1|2 dmy access dates 2 cs1|2 last/first 137 List of cs1 templates Cite book (38) cite book (85) Cite journal (5) cite journal (7) cite thesis (2) List of cs2 templates Citation (1) List of sfn templates sfn (183) Sfn (345) explanations

Regency of Algiers (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 29 July 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Daily pageviews of this article (experimental) Pageviews summary: size=92, age=7, days=75, min=338, max=745, latest=354. 06-30413 07-01384 07-02620 07-03542 07-04427 07-05449 07-06473 07-07531 07-08570 07-09497 07-10393 07-11481 07-12358 07-13428 07-14430 07-15349 07-16375 07-17518 07-18387 07-19346 07-20420 07-21422 07-22364 07-23395 07-24512 07-25390 07-26397 07-27400 07-28364 07-29338 07-30417 07-31385 08-01398 08-02582 08-03538 08-04490 08-05745 08-06469 08-07505 08-08400 08-09371 08-10419 08-11438 08-12467 08-13402 08-14364 08-15384 08-16368 08-17367 08-18432 08-19387 08-20352 08-21345 08-22352 08-23401 08-24465 08-25467 08-26464 08-27514 08-28428 08-29398 08-30418 08-31381 09-01395 09-02451 09-03438 09-04536 09-05530 09-06369 09-07481 09-08449 09-09440 09-10357 09-11390 09-12354 │ 0 │ 70 │ 140 │ 210 │ 280 │ 350 │ 420 │ 490 │ 560 │ 630 │ 700 page views for Regency of Algiers

The map of the Barbary States I just added has a caption and an alt, but I cannot currently get the caption to display. I know this is probably something with the name of the parameter, but cannot myself see the issue at the moment. Y diagnosed and fixed by Scope creep Elinruby (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher is missing. I am thinking Harvard University? Also is this a thesis? Elinruby (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a journal entry which is correctly cited. You don't put the publisher information in for modern journal articles. If it was 50 years old or something like that then they are historical, then you add it. scope_creep 15:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but what's the journal then? Elinruby (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explorations in Economic History. scope_creep 19:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

got back to this; I do see a journal name. Not sure if it was added or I was mistaken, but either way at this point this is not an issue. Elinruby (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, finally back home again, after few readings and using what we already have in the article, it's safe to beleive that Algiers was a stratocracy from beginning to end, i made small changes in the infobox and also added some informations about the Grand diwan, it was pretty important in the pashalik period. Also added a quote from Pierre Dan, one of the most important primary sources regarding the history of the Regency.

I'm sad to inform you that professor Lmnouar Merouche has passed away this past 15th of August at the age of 92 in Paris, may he rest in peace and i hope this article remains faithful to his grand legacy in Algerian history. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nourrerahmane: Rest in peace indeed. I have more respect for him the more I read.

I have made some changes to the Legacy section that I believe to be accurate but that you probably will want to review. I am also giving Merouche the summing up, if it is ok with you of course. My internet access has been sporadic and I am not certain whether this has actually been added yet. I think I needed to go back for a page number.

I really want to finish this article so let's set some ground rules so we are no longer getting in each other's way. Please tell me all the sections you just edited to I can review for Gallicisms. I in turn will point out to you some changes I have made, some of which were extensive and deal with the sections toward the end where we all had such a steep learning curve. I think we accepted some text that was there that we should not have (I will get to that) and I think you will agree with them. For example I am excited to have found a source that extensively discusses the water system in Algiers specifically in Ottoman-era buildings. But the reason I was looking at that was because you wanted me to build out the mention of Baba Mohammed in the lede and I added that in the period of prosperity that was his term in office, he brought water into Algiers, but I was having trouble finding a source for that. You probably have one off the top of your head, because I am pretty sure I got that information from you -- remember all the discussions about images for that? There is a small problem relating to the translation of "fountain" that we should discuss.

Anyway, if you are up for it let's do this.

But please please please please please let me actually be the one to add the text at this point. I will make all the changes you ask for, I promise. I just can't stand the thought of going through this again for English. It is both nerve-wracking and very tedious because it is so granular. I will add replies to this thread with individual issues. Elinruby (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nourrerahmane: sorry, spelled your user name wrong in the ping, and I want to make sure you see this. As a first order of business, maybe see if everything is ok with the infobox map. Somebody was complaining about it. I let R Prazeres answer and I think it is resolved but that is one question. As far as that goes, for the record I agree that the map has been extensively discussed and defer to whatever consensus with respect to map questions since I do not claim expertise in map questions at all. Pinging Scope creep and M.Bitton while I am at it, since they have been involved in past map discussions.

I want to submit this article Monday or Tuesday. Elinruby (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nourerrahmane: Also I had a huge lightbulb moment about the education section, which is heavily rewritten. The Sufi brotherhoods who were involved in the schools were in some cases the same as the religious institutions who were involved in the rebellions outside Algiers, no? I had not made that connection and you probably didn't notice it was missing because it is blindingly obvious to you. Please confirm. This can be remedied with just a few words but they have to be the right words. Elinruby (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian historian Merouche describes a divided historiography: first a colonial narrative then a nationalist backlash, and argues for a more holistic assessment of events and personalities.(cn)

The French began to describe Algiers as a former nest of pirates just after they conquered it in 1830, he notes, even though Algiers allied with the French and the British were in fact allies for much of the Regency's existence.against the Spanish and their Z allies. Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Al-Jilali mentions his works with fountains, as well as his predecessor actually.[1]p.266 and [2] p.233, but in my opinion, i think this source, Cambridge history of Islam, could inspire you to give a better image of the propserity of Algiers during Baba Mohamed ben Othman's rule in the lede [3] p.278 and p.279. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now. This is about to get deep. The fountain brought to mind by the English word "fountain" is decorative in its purpose but I think that what is primarily meant by "Fontaine" in the sources is a faucet for filling jugs of water. Am I right about that? There are at the moment to associated changes in the text about this but if I am right it's a possible point of confusion.

Also I do not insist on being the *only* editor to touch the text; I just think that we are so close to done that should ask any non-native English speakers to make edit requests at this point rather than making scattered changes, for the sake of my sanity.

Nour, I was really deep in sources so I don't think I made any mistakes, but if you want to help it would be good if you could review my changes just in case. Also, I could really use an answer about the Sufi brotherhoods because I would like to address that and declare the education section done. It got heavily rewritten. In particular I got rid of "otherworldly" as a description of the education system. I think somebody probably copied that but if dismissiveness from an ethnocentric French source that was talking about the Sufis. It is important to point out that the French were ethnocentric (and it's not like the French education system itself wasn't highly religious at the time also) but that should go in Legacy with the stuff about the divided historiography. Elinruby (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the end of the Architecture section:

A complex system of aqueducts brought water to the city, and a system of interlinked cisterns used the sloping topography for water distribution.

{{cite journal |first1=Meriem | last1=Sahraoui

|title=Ingenious Rainwater Harvesting System within the Algiers Ottoman Residential Buildings (Reconstitution and Performance Assessment)

|issn=2067-533X

|volume=14 |number=2 |date=April-June 2023 |p= 399

References

Elinruby (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Merouche, need to find page number and craft a cite: Apparently Aruj was supposed to be taking one side of a power struggle in Tlemcen, not so much taking power himself. Merouche says there is a contemporary document that says he killed a bunch of the local aristocracy and notables. Will make that as a proposal but it would go a long way towards explaining why the locals were upset enough with him to hunt him down and kill him when he left. Gotta go, will come back to that. Elinruby (talk)

There are a number of English problems. I am starting a new section for them. The changes I have looked at so far are good though but please pro pose new any further new changes on the talk page. It is also easier, for future reference to deal with changes if they are made one at a time rather than in one big edit.

• "Constitutional" is spelled wrong but I agree that the Fundamental Pact is important and needed more emphasis. I will just fix the spelling.
• The Pere Dan addition is also good but looks like a word for word translation. I will need to verify that against the source to fix it. If you have the French handy please paste it here.Elinruby (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great ! if i have any more additions i will add them here. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pere dan source [4] P 110 Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Aussi est-il vrai que leur Etat n'a que le nom de royaume, puisqu'en effet ils en font une république ,sans appréhender beaucoup le Grand Seigneur." Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little tricky, because previous context matters, but I would render it this way:

So in fact their state only has the name of kingdom, since in reality they made a republic out of it, without much regard for the Great Lord.

If you want to add a few sentences before it, the translation could probably be refined. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking "in name only". The reference to the great lord is saying that they pretty much ignored the Ottoman Sultan, right? I think you had omitted that, which I would agree with since the point is that it was a republic. Elinruby (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I usually avoid using primary sources regarding this subject, especially that we're talking about the Pashalik period. Some primary sources I looked upon state that Algiers was totally independent from the Ottoman Sultan, but secondary sources speak of a larger autonomy and reaching a de-facto independence starting from the second half of the 17th century (Merouche (2007) p.132) Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

did you see that sentence about historiography I proposed for the Legacy section? it's in the "I'm back" section. Also he had something to say about Aruj in Tlemcen that we maybe should add. Elinruby (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By early-mid 17th century, the Pasha, the Agha of the janissaries and the Admiral of the corsairs were heads of their respective factions in the Grand Diwân, holding decision-making power

I believe that per MoS "Pasha", "Agha" and "Admiral" should be lower-case as here these are generic references to the person holding the title and not in this case the title of a specific person. "Faction" is not a neutral word in English. Need to consult the source but suspect this could simply say "made decisions autonomously". Also if that said "se reunissaient" "met" would be a better translation. And since there was a diwân in Tunis I went ahead and called that a nom commun because I got no answer about it here. Now about "grand" -- does the French say "grand"? Because. ,"great" may be better. I am uncertain about the capitalization. Unless other countries also have one it may be un n propre, which would be capitalized in English. Elinruby (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby First part looks good, it's important to note this because it was also mentionned by Historian Nasreddin Saidouni, current head of Ottoman studies in Algeria. The nationalist backlash occurred during a period of struggle against the French before and during the Algerian war of independance. For the second part, the French have always described Algiers as a nest of Pirates despite, as Ian Coller points out, praising an African power for being the first nation to recognize the French republic and benefitting from much needed Algerian wheat supplies. So not sure about the second part in its current status. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review your changes tomorrow Elin, i need to get some sleep since my body is still going by Chinese hourly Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Elinruby (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think he does say that but will double check. We can work out a wording. After this big brain dump I am starting to need a break also however. I am not averse to using Coller; do you have a page number? I have a quote about the Compagnie de France re wheat. It is good Saidouni is notable; he is the source for the water system. If you have a page number we could add him in on the divided historiography. As well. This is a critical point. And yes, the I have seen the nationalism mentioned in terms of the independence war. Unsure if the was Merouche. Need food and to refocus my eyes. Elinruby (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of this article says:

• In the early 17th century, when the war between the Habsburg and Ottoman empires ended, ...

but Ottoman–Habsburg wars says:

• The Ottoman–Habsburg wars were fought from the 16th to the 18th centuries between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg monarchy,

so which is it?

Note also that the latter refers to one of the belligerents as the 'Habsburg monarchy', while this article links 'Habsburg dynasty' (a redirect to House of Habsburg). From the titles alone, its hard to say which is better; there seems to be a lot of overlap, and I wonder if they should even be merged, but that's o/t here. Just for fun, I asked Chat GPT, and it listed the Ottoman Empire on one side, and on the other The Habsburg Monarchy, also known as the Austrian Habsburgs, controlled vast territories in Central Europe, including modern-day Austria, Hungary, and parts of the Holy Roman Empire. The Habsburgs were a dominant force in European politics and sought to resist Ottoman expansion into their territories.. As far as when it ended, GPT said with the signing of the Treaty of Passarowitz on July 21, 1718. Thanks, (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were two peace treaties between the Ottomans and the Habsurgs, a first peace treaty was concluded in 1580 with the Spanish Habsburgs (see Hess) and a second peace treaty, the Peace of Zsitvatorok was concluded after the long Turkish war in 1606 with the Austrian Habsburgs. Algiers was not concerned with both them, and also didn't care about the peace of Passarowitz. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the apparent contradiction should be resolved; part of what has made this article so difficult is the sheer amount of backdrop. Can we maybe slip in "Spanish" and "Austrian" in front of the appropriate "Habsburg"? Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the fact that Algeria ignored the treaty is adequately covered but if not LMK. @Mathglot: I think you probably have the freshest eyes at this point, so if you would be interested in reviewing for more stuff like that I would be grateful. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go ahead and add "Austrian" and "Spanish" tbere. Let me know if one of you thinks this doesn't resolve the issue. A variant of this may also occur elsewhere; it seems to me that one of the very last sections ends eith the comment that such and such a treaty ended 300 years of war with Spain. Elinruby (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain whether I addressed your hesitation about what to call the Habsburgs, but I have put "Spanish" in front of your first instance here and am now headed back in to put "Austrian" in front of the other. Elinruby (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh your other instance is not in this article. For now I will leave this open as a question about whether the issue is resolved. Elinruby (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need two? I find that confusing Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• peer review said that multiimage templates should be centered above their sections. Some of them are are however left-aligned. I think this has to do with "centre" vs "center" but this did not seem to fix the issue last time.
• Is there a way to get the labels for historical periods in the infobox to left-aligned rather than center align?
• I never found a source for "golden age of piracy" let alone "Golden Age of the Barbary slave trade" and that very long label is affecting width. Can we please address this. What I did find a source for is "golden age of the Regency" and we should be going by sources. Maybe we need an ngram. Elinruby (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any left-aligned multiple image templates.
• I don't see any center-aligned historical periods in the Infobox.
• Hopefully you can mine our article Golden Age of Piracy for a ref for that (out of 38 total refs; if none of them lend support to that title, that would be pretty sloppy work.
• As far as a golden age of Barbary slave trade, that expression was added as a section title in rev. 181289597 of 31 Dec. 2007 by Dr Sachs (talk · contribs), and has since spread to other sites (e.g., here), even though the OR phrase was later altered six years later (here), but by that time, several web sites had picked it up. There is at least one book source for it (Algeria, a Country Study (1979) p. 23). Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On format issues I will try changing my skin. If it is just me on mobile on one particular skin it is not worth worrying about it. As for conflating "Barbary" or "barbare" or "piracy" with Algiers, it has been a problem. These concepts overlap but are not identical, in case anyone reading this is not aware. The "Barbary Coast" includes a lot of territory that was not part of the Regency of Algiers, and there was more than piracy to Algiers also, even though it was, yes, a big theme in its history. I will take another look at this. Elinruby (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection § Barbarossa brothers (under section 1. § History > § 16th century: Establishment > § Barbarossa brothers) covers the first quarter of the 16th century, and has significant overlap with section § Political status (opening paragraphs, and subsections § 1516: Founding of Algiers and § Hayreddin's consolidation. I think it's okay to cover the same chronological period twice in an article, if the subtopic or theme being covered in each one is different; say, in an article on France, "Economy of the 17th century" and "Art of the 17th century". But is that really the case here? Where the dividing lines lie between the two sections covering the 16th century is not clear to me.

I think if a clear separation of theme can be established and better portrayed, perhaps through section headers that show an obvious difference of focus, and lead paragraphs in each section that define the scope of that section (and distinguishing it from others covering the same period), then fine. Otherwise, they should be considered for possible merging. A merge probably wouldn't be a simple affair, but if there's a plan to nominate for a status upgrade, it might need to be considered. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but can anyone tell me what sort of thing belongs in each one, and not the other? Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article structure has been this way since I got involved. Not sure whether it is Nour's. We are adding mentions of things that really are DUE to an article that has already been extensively edited for length so there may well be some trimming that can be done there. It is my understanding that the concept is narrated timeline followed by a more thematic approach, and that what you are probably looking at is an intro to the government and politics discussion. While you really can't discuss the founding of the Regency without a mention of ARuj strangling the sultan in his bathtub, it is possible that at some point some incarnation of this article went overboard with the pirate stuff.

On the other hand I am about to propose we mention some other assassinations in Tlemcen.

There is a big picture here of colonial narrative vs decolonization, see the historiography discussion about the Legacy section.

TL/DR great question; let me come back to that. I just got here and will be here for several hours Elinruby (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't re-read these in a long time, but as general thought, partially merging the "History" and "Political status" sections might be a good idea, as most equivalent "History" sections in (former) country articles include political history. Much of the "Political status" section would qualify as that, or at least the material that deals with events and important changes. At the same time, some of the material that deals with revenues and government could be moved to "Administration" if preferred, and/or to a new "Diplomacy" subsection. (The latter could gather any materials dealing more narrowly with relations with the Ottomans, Europeans, etc; some of these are currently in the "History" section too.) R Prazeres (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have did some partial merging, is this good enough so far ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So are we doing another rewrite? Am I waiting for you guys to do it or are you waiting for me? Also, I am pretty sure Merouche said there was little to no international trade in crafts. Maybe SashiRolls had a source that says otherwise however? Elinruby (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging complete, hopefully it's much more concise and organized this way. feel free to give me a feedback. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok? Guess we cross-posted. There is the error of fact that SashiRolls seems to have inserted for some reason. Also he seems to have an issue with "crafts". Otherwise, I can get on this tonight, sure. Elinruby (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright, I think I see what confused SashiRolls. Part of it is legacy text I hadn't fixed yet, and he doesn't realize that the international trade was agricultural and had nothing to do with crafts. Even though the very same source he referred to says that the Regency didn't produce enough rugs and pottery etc to meet all of its own needs. Maybe some text got rearranged here, but the majority of those place names weren't cities either, were they? The topic is complex though. I am just going to delete the sentence. It was vague to begin with and now it's wrong. Also I see no particular reason to "crafts" to "artisanry" in that one single instance when we have an entire section on "crafts".Elinruby (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed: Cities were centers of great and commercial activity and served as hubs for trade. to Cities were established centers for artisanry and served as hubs for international trade. on the basis of the source given which says: Crafts were well developed and sufficiently diversified in the major cities to provide most of the manufactured products required by the urban population.

Not confused. Diligent. -- SashiRolls 06:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that I should have just deleted that legacy text. But the article is still far from finished and if anything it's the source that needs to change. However, the international trade was WHEAT. Actually, why am I repeating myself? I said all this above and you just dismissed it. Why did it occur to you to come to this article may I ask, hmm? You obviously don't know the topic and don't want to learn it. Supposing I am wrong about that I suggest you read the entire page of the source, plus the remarks above. Where does it say international trade in crafts? The brugs and pottery were made elsewhere. The tribes supplied the cities and ALMOST met their needs. You also obviously haven't read the rest of the article, where this is extensively discussed. And sourced. There's probably a gigabyte of discussion about crafts in the archives. I am also not sure about "established" since as I recall it wasn't always the same nomads who came to the markets. @Nourerrahmane, M.Bitton, and R Prazeres: maybe you can educate this guy better than I can. Elinruby (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote that? shows that it was you who mangled the syntax in the subsection on crafts with this edit. It also shows that it was you who introduced two spelling errors in this edit, one of which broke a link while leaving the anthropomorphic "wounds" Spain suffered in place... in general you cannot wound something that is not living. As for how I found this page, you have been talking about this page for ages on Wikipediocracy. While I don't know that I would necessarily call that canvassing, it did draw my attention to your edits here. As for international trade, the wiki-text in the Crafts subsection does not assert that crafts were traded internationally. You yourself added "hubs of trade". I added international since the source speaks of slaves, gold, ivory, and ostrich feathers... -- SashiRolls 10:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it. (Personal attack removed) Elinruby (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Elinruby (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This bears no relationship at all to the text that was in front of it or there t that used to be in front of it. It does talk about a couple of points where DUE is being considered, so adding that text here in case it is useful. Certes, mesurée aux ravages causés chez les Espagnols et leur bloc par les corsaires anglais, hollandais et français, la course d'Alger reste de dimension modeste. Mais elle a une importance significative par rapport à la société d'Alger et des ports liés à la course. Cette entreprise qui a déjà une certaine envergure est promise à de grands développements. En effet, ce que De Grammont appelle l'âge mercantile de la course commence à prendre forme dès les années 1570 et atteindra sa plénitude à .partir de 1580. Elinruby (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually found in Merouche's first book (2002) p.11

- Lede: I see you have linked the propsperity of Algiers with Muhammad ben Othman's rule and you have added his works regarding water system in Algiers. Which is good, He built fountains as Zahar indicated but also carried the water of el hamma to the canals of the city of Algiers according to Al-Jilali. Added to Saidouni's source; this is all i have about water system during his rule.

Dey Muhammad did many public works, and guarenteed the military superiority of Algiers over its naighbors, His rule was known for political stability, and he maintained regular tribute payments from European countries (Cambridge history of Islam p.278-279). If we can summerize this in 3 of 4 words that would be good in my opinion. According to Merouche (2002). p171 "1766-91: Muhammad Uthman Pasha: "He built from his savings a superb mosque, opposite the Government House, two new forts, the foundry and several ships. In addition, during the bombardment, he deposited 200,000 sequins in the treasury that he did not take back." Indeed, Tachrifat recorded deposits in the treasury made by the Dey between 1777 and 1787, the value of which exceeded 200,000 sultani."

"The long period of stability and prosperity that characterized the long reign of Muhammad b. Uthman (1766-1791) and his two great beys of the East and the West, benefited, beyond the recognized qualities of these leaders, from the regular rise in treasury revenues and the wealth accumulated by the senior leaders." (Merouche (2002) p.178

- Saidouni's source (Algerian papers) speaks of the colonial and Algerian nationalist writings, the first ones stemming out of European intrests in privateering and trying to undermine the existance of an Algerian people and identity and the second ones being a backlash against that. then post independence ones which he considered more reliable but still meagre due to the hostile political environment from p.16 to p.21

- Adding Aruj assasinations of a number of Zayyanid princes is important but we need to precise that this had to do with internal squabble among Zayyanid princes and their supporters in Tlemcen. Merouche analyses the Anti Ottoman writings of that period and indicate they were pro Saadian ones.

- Ian Coller p.126-127 speaks about relations between Algerian and revolutionnary France. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• what is the "it" that is on p.19? The name?
• Thanks for page numbers on Cambridge history; I wasn't getting anything on search. Probably they use one of his many other names? Will look. I will still be preoccupied by RL and moving around and grabbing hotspots for another couple of days. I agree that the military fortifications are important. What is the name of his predecessors again?
• assassinations of the Zayyanid princes deserves a mention. Not sure how important it is in the bigger picture. What happened to the Zayyanids? They were still around after killing Aruj right? I think that since Merouche mentions omitting these assassinations as a failing of the nationalist narrative, we should at least mention them. The section at one point seemed saying that various cities asked him for help and he was their benefactor. My understanding from reading is that it was more like certain factions in regional disputes of succession asked him to support their cause but not necessarily take over, which is what he in fact did. Which is fine and makes him more believable. If this is a correct assessment then yes the question is how to summarize that very briefly. Also, the aspect of him as public benefactor is real, right? Given the morisco rescue missions and that time the corsairs showed up with wheat in ... Was it Constantine?
• Coller with a page number look like a small enough bite to do right now. Elinruby (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  - Merouche's first book (2002) p.11 refers to this [5]

  - [6] Baba Ali Bou Sbaa Dey

  - I've seen other sources Like Spencer, Cambridge history of Islam, Hess (Forgotten frontier), Yahya Bouaziz, wolf, not mentionning these events, while Julien said that "It is said that seventy ziyanids were drown on his order" p.279 but All agree that he was invited to Tlemcen. Boaziz says that he deposedt the ruler who conspired against him shortly after restoring him to the throne. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Planning to put in a long session tonight. It would probably be easier and shorter for this issue to just mention the assassinations rather than Merouche's use of it as an example. Elinruby (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two infobox flags stacked vertically in the infobox with a narrow, light-colored band between them (which I assume is just the infobox bg color) tend to merge and appears to me at first glance like one flag taller than it is wide, with many horizontal bands. This could be fixed either by getting rid of one of them, adding a caption between the two, swapping one of them with the coat-of-arms so you have two flags side-by-side and the coat of arms below, or just removing the coat of arms. As it is now, it takes a moment to adjust to the idea that all those bands of color are supposed to represent two different flags. Mathglot (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These two flags are the variants displayed in visual sources per written sources. I suggest we keep them both and add a caption between them. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now; thanks. Mathglot (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is cited correctly. Author appears to be Mohammed el Kebir. Not finding the name Gorguos. I think he was probably the editor of that journal issues, or maybe all of the issues of this journal, but don't we usually alphabetize under author not Gorguos, A (1857), and regardless, if the name is indeed not in the document, should we really cite it? pinging @Nourerrahmane: for the question about the name. Elinruby (talk) 08:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "it" above means the editor name of that is what it is; the source does completely verify what it is being used for. I was going to change the page number to 410 though, which is specifically where he talks about madrasas. He would also probably be a good source for the public infrastructure construction of Baba Mohammed; looking at that next. Elinruby (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Never mind. The first question. Mohammed el Kebir was bey of the western province at one point. But that means that the archived source has no details on its provenance Elinruby (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

janissaries joining the corso doesn't seem to be supported by any of the sources provided. Also what's with the teeny tiny subsections? Pretty sure one of the GA/FA criteria is enough headers but not too many. Elinruby (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby Golden age : "The 17th century was a 'golden age' for the North African corsairs. Algerian autonomy and rivalry between Christian states made the prestige and wealth of the corsairs reach its zenith.(Julien p.305-306 and Panzac p.10"

The janissary support is properly sourced (Bachelot p. 28)

I think we need the small subsections because the History section is now bigger, why do you suggest ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the size of the subsections is a minor point we can come back to. I'll check the criteria to make sure and see what Scope creep thinks. Meanwhile small sections probably make discussion easier. The sources were not behind the sentence containing those words so I changed it to say what the source said. I have however since found "Golden Age of Algiers" and "golden age of corsairs" in other sources in the section and was thinking about ways to work that in, since you seem to really want that. One of them says (from memory) that the golden age of Algiers faded into economic decline in the eighteenth century, for example. But that would be a couple subsections down. I still have not gotten through the entire section but there are several source integrity problems. Elinruby (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather stick to what Julien says, although multiple sources speak of a Golden age of corsairs or privateering, i think it has to be there, Merouche called the 17th century, the century of privateering. Algerian prosperity depended on it, but things changed in the 18th century, though it's not exactly an economic decline, but revenues from privateering declined drastically, causing a change of government and a change priorities. That's why the janissaries took over and focused more on subduing the hinterland, Tunis and Morocco. as explained in the article in the Maghrebi wars subsection and the Deys-Pasha period. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then use Julien as a source, geez. It really scares me that I still have to say this. Please re-read the verifiability policy. Elinruby (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already did...and also removed an unsourced and repetitive sentence. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of verifiability, some of your ce fail that, so i had to do this: [7], also it's not the first time you make spelling mistakes, like this one: [8], and as far as spelling is concerned, I think SashiRolls is adressing you. Let us help each other Elin. This is what WP is about. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Elinruby (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that was not per talk. It looks like it might be an improvement though, so I will remove the dubious flag I had there for the causal relationship to the size of the fleet, since you got rid of that. But since you are again breaking our agreement about workflow, I am out for now. Meanwhile SashiRolls wants to fix your spelling apparently. Good luck to him. Elinruby (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elin, we're just working togather here, it's not about breaking any agreement. if there is an issue we're just going to talk about it here. I can improve things too and have your opinion for that, if you don't agree you can just undo it. Let's move foward shall we ? I really want to finish this. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. And your ideas are fantasic (even though you did tell me Osman) but I am sorry, I have tried really hard to work with you but while you are great on the facts every single time you improve something the English needs massive amounts of work. So improve. Don't let me stop you. I am done though. And when I ask you questions you rewrite some more. Maybe the guild of copyeditors won't mind editing this article for months on end. I gave you conditions for my help and you have disrespected them over and over. But hey, you'll like Sashi. He loves France and hasn't realized yet that the sources contradict another.Elinruby (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A shame, but your conditions don't suit me, this is not what WP is about, especially that i corrected some of your spelling mistakes myself (see above). If you're not willing to work then others might do so. Thanks for your contribution. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mine are typos. And yes I make them. Especially when I put too many hours in, which has been the case for too long here. But it won't be the first time I tell you this, but I will again because the article is in fact important and that why I tried so hard here. Wikipedia isnt about writing what you have been taught then sprinkling random sources around. For a long time I thought this stuff was left over, but that is a section you just re-wrote and told me was finished. And you got upset that I said the stuff in quotes wasn't in the source. Ok, it's in another source, great. But not the one that was there. You realize the sentence is supposed to match the source right? I don't know why you don't understand that this is a problem but fine. My advice to you is to go re-read policy if you want a good article and stop relying on other people to explain it to you, and then arguing. With them. Or, as long as you don't want GA, you can probably keep going like this for quite a while. I am not going to report you. But yes, Wikipedia is about my conditions when it comes to whether I am going to fix your English for the nineteen or twentieth time. I am a volunteer and completely entitled to say I don't want to do this anymore. And please stop calling me Elin, it's annoying. Elinruby (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence was poorly sourced, i rewrote it, you told me it was an improvement but you still didn't like the fact that i edited in the article...you didn't assume good faith. So yeah this got me upset. But remember that I'm an editor in this article, i didn't force you to come here and improve it, each time i read more sources and have better ideas of the subject. So it's natural to add few sentences especially if you're not against them. Wether you want to keept improving this article or not is fine by me. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you still didn't tell me what was wrong with my rewrite or my additions, or even the merging i did (without undoing your ce). seems you just don't like me editing at all... that's your condition ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the past several months of the talk page, which consists almost entirely of me assuming good faith on your part and you failing to answer me. I promised you a weekend to polish the english and stuck with you through the discovery of all the copyvios and source integrity problems, many of which remain unaddressed simply because of the sheer amount of time it has taken to write them up. This doesn't begin to address the pov pushing, which is understandable given the sources on this topic, but still excessive, and the keyword stuffing, which is rampant. Almost all of your contributions contain language that is inappropriately emotional. I was willing to help you because Wikipedia is still better off with this article than without it, but I am not willing to edit war with you in order to help you. It is not possible to take this article to even GA in the circumstances. I may be back to tie up a few loose ends on the talk page but I am longer available. You blew your 17th or 18th do-over and I am done. Please make sure you address the word-for-word translations. Elinruby (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were standardizing on Osman. I don't care one way or the other, and as a transliteration problem I leave this call to the Arabic speakers, but we need to pick one or the other Elinruby (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad ibn Uthman per Merouche, Julien, and Cambridge history of Islam. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't sure where to put this, to attract the interest of editors interested in a variety of topics, but this is as good a place as any. Cirrus search, which powers our search engine when you search for something, has all sorts of useful keywords that most people don't bother with, but they can be really handy. One I rarely see used but that is very cool, is morelike. Here's an example:

morelike: Regency of Algiers

Try it out with other articles you are interested in, and it will find a lot of other, related topics you are probably interested in, too. I would be curious to know what percentage of those top 50 results have a mention in this article somewhere. Mathglot (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, will look Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]