Loading

  • 21 Aug, 2019

  • By, Wikipedia

Talk:Regency Of Algiers
Regency of Algiers is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by Nourerrahmane (talk) at 22:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Short description: 1516–1830 autonomous Ottoman state in North Africa

    ↑ To top of page

    New changes

    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 [1] 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]

    Possible History – Political status overlap

    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]

    Pashalik period

    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: [2], also it's not the first time you make spelling mistakes, like this one: [3], 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]

    Muhammad ibn Uthman's

    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]

    morelike

    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]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regency_of_Algiers&oldid=1248869943"