Jump to content

Talk:Regency of Algiers/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

should have articles but don't

re the lede

We also fail to mention Baba Uthman Mohammed[1] in the lede. Does any have an objection to making the part about the wars a compound sentence along with the long period of prosperity? Please nobody rewrite anything in the lede. But taking wording suggestions here.

References

  1. ^ or however we are standardizing the name, I forget

Green tickY has been added Elinruby (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Lede is done except for just one question

Per the above I added Baba Mohammed to the infobox and lede. I made some other minor changes also. The question relates to holy war. The question is whether "European powers" should be rewritten to say "European nations and other powers such as the Vatican and Knights of Malta"? Do we talk enough about the Knights of Malta Elinruby (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

So thats where Knights Hospitaller ended up. Read a book about this castle designer who spent I think 40 years fortyfying their castle on Rhodes. The ingenuity of the man for killing was unbelievable. The Vatican is a nation and during that period was extremely powerful, like now and was present. I wouldn't seperate it out. scope_creepTalk 17:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Ok but the Knights of Malta were not, and there is actually a whole theme about holy war that used to be overemphasized and now seems to be gone altogether. I think that the point that Algiers was not the only entity that felts that there was holy war to be waged is kind of important. I think may be a short sentence should go in there, or another clause in the sentence about holy war. Apart from maybe that, are we missing anything else important thought? The constitution maybe? Elinruby (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we did a bit of comparison between the Maltese knights and Algiers in the political status section. Do you want an emphasis on how both entities understood and implemented the concept of Holy war ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I am overestimating the extent to which the idea of holy war is shocking to an English speaker. I simply think that if the lede is going to discuss holy war it should do so in a balanced way, and there were multiple military forces waging holy war at the time, no? On the other hand, it *is* the lede and the main place we get into that in the article is with the knights of Malta, right? So I was thinking about half a sentence, maybe saying that the Regency joyfully participated in the international religious wars of the period, that would do it. Open to suggestions.
Also: shouldn't Ali Bitchin be in the lede maybe? Elinruby (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

crickets Elinruby (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

With respect to layout

I think I have gotten away from the problem we had in a couple of places of a multiimage template at the bottom of e section being right on top of a multiimage template at the top of the next section. Does anyone have any issues with the current image layout? I am not asking about particular images right now, or alts or captions, oe anything but whether there are problems with images overlapping or whatever anywhere in the article.

Comment? Remember we are being told that single images go to the right and multiimage templates get centered. Elinruby (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Green tickY i think this is over Elinruby (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Image properties

@Elinruby: I've updated the British English caption property on File:Barbarijse galeien Barbarijsche Galeijen (titel op object), RP-P-1896-A-19368-451.jpg since it was all in Dutch. I'm wondering if we need to do all of them. scope_creepTalk 14:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been through this several times now and am pretty sure all captions are in English. I do have a haunting feeling I left off an alt somewhere though. Elinruby (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Few image suggestions:
Adding. Placecement may change Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Adding. Don't really like the placement but it is easier to add, then rearrange Elinruby (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Green tickY done Elinruby (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I like this image a lot but the uploader did not include the legend. I can fix this but not on this device. Elinruby (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
never mind, it was off the edge of the screen. Tribal aristocracy section can use this Elinruby (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Added Green tickY Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Why do we need an image of a Jewish man at all? Please explain this. Elinruby (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Visually I like this image a lot better than the one in the museum and wonder why I haven't seen it sooner. However, I need a reference for it or something. If I can find the image from the museum that is probably enough. Elinruby (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I found the photo of it in the museum and am convinced. Still think we should attribution though. I can probably do this. Elinruby (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I suggest we remove one the two images in the Education section and the tiled wall in the architecture section and i'm unsure, i also beleive we have too many barbarossa images. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Education and titled wall is done. Barbarossa to be evaluated once images settle down Elinruby (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I added this Elinruby (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Green tickY done Elinruby (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
This image is in History of the Regency of Algiers. Better quality sounds fine. Elinruby (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC) Will switch. Elinruby (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
This is done. I swapped the better image in. Elinruby (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
This is done but I have reservations about source date
Source link is a 404 error and I am not sure what it is to begin with Elinruby (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
this image's source link is a 404 Elinruby (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Will check on phone. Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby The treaty of 1662 image was taken from an official Algerian ministry website, how can this fail FA ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I am willing to believe that it originally came from a government website. However on my phone at least gloriousalgeria.dz looks like it scraped the official website.... This is discussable and could be solved with a better link. Same thing with "North West University". Elinruby (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Nour, see below about the copyright notice on the webpage. Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I see your suggestions but haven't looked at them. Obviously we will need another reshuffle. But for the sake of my sanity let me finish something here. I want to be confident the images we are using are all from good sources. I am annotating captions about the sources for keeping track. Once I am done we can trim the captions back if that seems like a good idea Elinruby (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
PS: Glorious Algeria looks like a much more serious website on the laptop btw, and I can see why it might not load on the phone. So this is a government agency? What I was looking at was just some social media sharing buttons pretty much. Elinruby (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Scope creep Captions in English would be good. This should actually be true of most if not all of them though, if you want to check. Did I add an alt? I had to move stuff around to make a place for it. You happy with that part::Too hot, slept all day. Big push on a little while to finish Elinruby (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC) what's the official English name of that government agency? Elinruby (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC) @Nourerrahmane:

It's the Ministry of Mujahideen and Rights Holders Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Is that something like the Armed Forces? Elinruby (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
the above question remains unanswered. Elinruby (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Map of the Mediterranean.png has no source provided. This is because we are using a version I cropped and uploaded - note to self to go get provenance from original file. Elinruby (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

After the Dance, same thing. The other Bro de Comeres is from an auction site. 14:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
After the Dance was also from an auction site. Elinruby (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane: Mohamed Racim.jpg what is up with the copyright on this? Sourcing just says Mohamed Racim. Did he personally give it to you or what? When was this painted? Elinruby (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Salahedine ben Naoum,history researcher <-- is this a good image source? Also Geographicus describes itself as a "dealer" <-- is that the same thing as an auction site? Elinruby (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I will look at image suggestions next. If we could stop converting back to File syntax from multiimage without discussion that would be great; also those black and while paintings are called "etchings". I think I have verified most if not all of the the image sources for the images that were in the article Elinruby (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Image suggestions look good; I am going to hike out for caffeine then spend a couple of hours adding/rearranging before I have to leave again. Hopefully to finish tonight. There remains the source verification. Yes really. Issues with "what is a quote" are a PROBLEM. If I can. tonight. If not, as soon as it seems preferable to gouging my eyes out. There are some other items on that to-do list that are not addressed yet, A sentence on Baba Mohammed among them. This question remains unanswered Salahedine ben Naoum,history researcher <-- is this a good image source? Also Geographicus describes itself as a "dealer" <-- is that the same thing as an auction site? Elinruby (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC) and if it does not get answered I will simply replace those images also Elinruby (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
On Geographicus no. They donated their whole collection of images to Wikipedia in March 2011 so is perfectly fine. Can't locate the other image. scope_creepTalk 08:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
On the miniature Mohamed Racim.jpg. Well used and well-liked image on tumbler, reddit, facebook. There is a CC 4.0 sharealike licence, so is licenced correctly. Its ok. scope_creepTalk 08:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Although in saying that. It is a 1972 image, I can't see how it it would be licenced like that. Need further explanation. scope_creepTalk 08:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I removed the Racim image as there is no indication that it meets the copyright requirements Green tickY Elinruby (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Thank you for tracking down Geographicus. The other image is an image of a treaty near the end of an article. In the Roman alphabet. Sorry for flaking yesterday; there are no wildfires within 50 miles of here but it is the height of wildfire season and I guess the windy overcast weather blew some smoke this way. Sinuses were screaming and the medication I took for that put me to sleep. All is well now however, skies are blue and I feel fine. Need to do a couple of things today but this is top of my list on wikipedia still and very near the top of the overall list. Just checking messages right now. Geographicus map stays in then, got it. Elinruby (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Morning @Elinruby: Curiously my mate in Groveland, California was talking about that yesterday. He is a director the HOA,HBA or something, the housing association for the housing estate he's on, for a couple years and he's talking about how they fined this dude because he had dead tree in his garden and refused to remove it, and they were running scared. This was happening over months. So they fined him, eye watering and got the crane and forcefully removed it. Strange times. I couldn't find that image re: Roman alphabet?? We need to add the detailed galley image that Nour found re: above and the after image when they moved to ocean going ships, to show the contrast. Don't if they are in. scope_creepTalk 07:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)


I weeded the History article earlier then took a break. Working my way up to adding new images and re-doing the layout, since now we have single images in Multiimage format and various other layout problems. Kind of upsetting -- I spent days on editing some of the images that have copyright problems, but there you go. Should have checked this myself. I want to finish the last 5-6 pages of the novel I am reading then will start on this article again. Re your mate: I can see why. Look up the Paradise Fire. Up here we have had at least one catastrophic fire -- I am not sure how the nearby fire in Spence's Bridge is doing as all the news coverage is currently about the devastation in Jasper, a famous and beloved resort town noted for stunning Rocky Mountain scenery. That one is on the other side of several mountain ranges and no threat, and even the kinda-close one would have to find a way to burn a path around a long rocky and treeless canyon to threaten more than the air quality here. But all that could change with one thunderstorm. Welcome to climate change. There is now a wildfire season on the the entire west coast of North America.

Answering a question from above: I removed the treaty image at the History article also, after taking another look. I did not find it on the website, but more important, all subpages of the website of the Ministry of Mujahadeen and Rights Holders that I looked at had a copyright notice at the bottom saying that all rights were reserved. Theoretically a photo of an official historic document like a treaty would be exempt, but what do I know about Algerian copyright law? It needn't necessarily follow British/US patterns. That one is in Arabic, which is why I specified that the other one I was questioning used the Roman alphabet. I questioned it because it is attributed to a "researcher", which is not in the same class as the Prado, but might be ok if he is well-known, I guess. I will find it and put the file name right here when I come back, but the question is in green above. Back soon. All is well, just taking a short break. Elinruby (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yea, Coolio. If you see any copyright notice, forget the image. For each image, even if its before the 1924 cut-off date, i.e. PD, its a whole lot of work to prove it. A whole lot. scope_creepTalk 11:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah I see I did not supply a file name, just the source. Not sure. I will probably find it again as I am working, and let you know. You're right, it doesn't seem to be the remaining treaty image. If you are looking for ways to help, there are some questions on the talk page of the History article, and I definitely gave the file name for those. Warming up the mental engine. Elinruby (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Made some headway. Feeling kind of discouraged right now, like my time is not being respected and/or N is just not reading the policy or people telling him about the policy. The new images need to be from reputable, verifiable sources. And free of copyright. OK? Much better overall tho, maybe I am just tired. I will be back, but I need a break again. @Scope creep: I get the concept of the change in ship technology. Looked for the image you wanted me to add. I am all for it. Will be first thing I do when I come back. Elinruby (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: I just read up on the history article talk. We were talking about the two before and after galley/ship on there. I don't know if the before/after needs to go on here or on the history article. I think the original galley image was on here, right at the top, mid image in that first block, but has been replaced with something. They should probably go here since this is the core of privateering, but where is the question? scope_creepTalk 11:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Got that wrong. The first galley image was in the history article, between Barbarossa and his brother. So the before/after should go in there, somewhere. scope_creepTalk 11:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Scope creep do not understand the above. My understanding is that since the switch from galleys to sailed ship was so pivotal, the idea is to put a galley and a sailed ship together to illustrate the change, is that right? So far the galley is in but I do not guarantee it is in the "right" place. There is an etching of ships with sails but it isn't from the same period at all. Working on this in little short bursts. Trying to be verbose with the updates tho. Elinruby (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: They should be together in the same block. scope_creepTalk 11:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
But I think the other image is from the 18th century and might be seen as irrelevant to the topic. Not sure. I am clicking around the edges of this but may not actually start work until tomorrow for mental health and logistical reasons. But I do see the concept and agree with it, not that that actually matters since you plus Nour is two out of three, which I have declared to be consensus... I will come back to this. I agree that we should do this and if necessary provide a little more text about it. I don't remember right now where the 18th century image is from (and would need to look up the admiral's name to be sure of the dating) but it is, mind you, totally fine, I remember vetting it, I am pretty sure. Good for inclusion just maybe not there. In fact, to who it may concern, it would be great if someone found an image, preferably also an engraving, of 16th or 17th century Algerine ship. Elinruby (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I added the image to the Barbary Wars section Elinruby (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

no more complaints about how long this is taking until y'all start answering these y/n "is this done" questions

  • Speaking of: Is anyone looking at the infobox?
I also noticed that although Titteri is listed the Kingdom of Kuku is not, and wasn't Kuku at least an ally at one point? What's the scope of that list? places that were at some point occupied by Algiers? Dramatis Personae?. Same question applies to the rules and deputies fields. We're definitely not including everything there, can someone check what we are including or not? I know they were going through deys fast at one point, but shouldn't we at least try to get the important ones in. And given the scope of that deputies probably should at most include people like Salah Reis and Simon Danza.
  • Is everyone happy with the map in the infobox Y/N
  • No. Still not keen on it, because of the missing components and labels that actually make it a map. Its missing even the basic map scale bar. The reader can't even how big it is, for example. Take a look at [2]. The minimum is 6 components, generally for a map. Its needs the scale bar added, and the oceans/sea and other countries labelled at the minumum. scope_creepTalk 15:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Green tickY *Is the concern about insufficient attention to sea power in the lede addressed? Y/N

Green tickY *What year was it when an onion was worth more than a slave? Did that get taken out? Y/N

  • Yes but its in the history article I looked at the source. It states, at that point in the time, the onion was more valuable than the slave and no other information provided. It is essentially valid. Ignore this please. scope_creepTalk 15:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
If it's in the history article it's all good Elinruby (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Should the Knights of Malta be mentioned in the lede in the context of holy war? Y/N
  • No. Nour says they should they should be of the body, which is correct. But they are European Powers by definition, i.e. the crusades, or the end of the crusades but only here in relation to the song. And only mentioned tangenitally in relation in a minor in history. So no in both articles. scope_creepTalk 15:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Does our expected audience understand privateers? Y/N
  • Yes, because it is linking privateers in the lede. It can't be clearer. A quick search of privateers turns up the definition at US Naval Institute Naval History Command which links back to the privateer article. Ignore this please. scope_creepTalk 15:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Green tickY *Baba Mohammed has been added to lede and infobox OK? Y/N

  • mentioning influx to Melilla from Grenada as intro to presidios makes sense Y/N Elinruby (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
    - Oh alright, the image changes seemed a bit strange for me in that article
    - Infobox looks good for me
    - Lede: Another ce maybe needed there, also we may need to add a word that links the political stabilty of Algiers with the propserity of Algiers under Muhammad ben Osman.
    - Yes it's been adressed
    - Not necessarly, this should be adressed in the body.
    - I beleive yes...I think Panzac's quote in the Foreign relations section makes it clear enough.
    - Yes
    - Yes, post-Reconquista period is important to understand the foundation of the Regency
    Speaking of Kuku, it was Allied with Arouj, enemy with Hayredd in, enemy with Hasan Agha, Allied with Hasan Pasha, Salah Rais, and the rest of the Beylerbeys. Kuku was important during the Barbarossa period and was mentionned during Algerian campaigns against Morocco. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC) the
It seems like some items might be missing because I can't quite find the answer about an onion. I agree about Baba Mohammed and will try to make that happen. I am otherwise hearing that Nourerrahmane is happy with the lede and thinks we should leave Knights of Malta to the body, which was the other outstanding question about the lede. I am a bit confused about the answer about Kuku -- ok, they were allies and enemies at different times, ok. Would this not make them at least as important as Titteri? I have absolutely no dog in this fight, as they say, however. I am just the annoying editor who keeps asking questions. If someone can explain to me in ten words or less why Titteri is in the infobox but kuku is not then I will be delighted to move on. Elinruby (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Kuku officially ended in the early 17th century due to an Algerian expedition and internal squabbling among local leaders of Kuku.
Titeri is in the infobox because its governor organised a local resistance against the French army after the city of Algiers fell in 1830. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
OK, you explained it. The explanation doesn't make any sense, but I will take that as a request to move on for now. We can come back to the infobox later Elinruby (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
still pending. The reason I said that the explanation made no sense is that to my mind existing at the Regency's creation makes it a predecessor but I am sure what the stuff N said would make Titteri. Infobox needs to reviewed shall we say. Also, do we really need two flags? Check sourcing but N. Has a list, just not sure if he added any of it to the infobox or the flag article. Elinruby (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

language issue?: implausible reference

Internal trade was extremely important due to the makhzen system.[1]

Probably supposed to say the Makhzen system was extremely important to internal trade. It is also possible, though less self-evident, that internal trade was important to the makhzen system, but if we are going to go there this should be better explained. Reference is out of print and not easily available Elinruby (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
0n re-reading could also be the makhzen system allowed internal trade to be important Elinruby (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kaddache 2003, p. 235.

Clothing, crafts, arts

Seems there was puppet theatre and mud wrestling, seems worth a mention. Also the instruments we have are correct but a flute should be added. Elinruby (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

small detail

Olivier Bro de Comères (1813–1870) should have an article, first of all, and the captions of those two images right next to each other should not contradict one another Elinruby (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  • De Comères family: I think there was a batch of images in the architecture section taken on a Wiki Loves Manuments photowalk from one of their private homes. A museum now? But it would be worth having a little bio stub to link to. There are also several French writers just after the occupation. What should we write? I think at least two of them were semi-famous, no? Elinruby (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • extensive article at Louis Bro [fr] the grandfather, a military official, many linked articles at French Wikipedia. It defies summary really Elinruby (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Apart from ce, are there more issues that need to be adressed ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Got this File:Divan members of Algiers.jpg, a chaouch, a private and a grand divan members from a German book. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
A description of them was given in this book of Georges Marçais. p 63 [3] Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Found additional sources on arts and crafts :
[4]: Art Antique et Art Musulman en Algérie par A. BERQUE
[5]: L'art en Algérie de Georges Marçais Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
ok so this is the reference for the German book? Elinruby (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby you speak of the Divan members image ? this is the link for commons where you can find the ref for the german book. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The Bro de Comères images were both removed because they were from auction sites. I looked at the Marçais book on Google Books but I am having trouble getting anything out of snippet view. Which is ironic; considering how Old it is it can't possibly be under copyright Elinruby (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

thinking of using this in the Diwan section, or perhaps reordering the images in the Crafts section, Needs straightening and maybe cropping Elinruby (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

fresh image notes

  • @Scope creep: can you figure out why I can't get the caption to appear under the 1707 map? Also, despite the single-image-to-the-right rule, it seems like a shame to thumb it and maybe Nourerrahmane was right about this.
  • Possible extraneous image: Woman wearing a burqua looks out from a tiled balcony over orange trees in a central courtyard

Elinruby (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yip. scope_creepTalk 09:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
sp. scope_creepTalk 09:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
k Elinruby (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • btw is that really a hijab she is wearing? I wrote that caption, and I am thinking I should reality check it. Elinruby (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Also, orange trees? maybe you can see them if you zoom in? Elinruby (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Its a modern burqa, I think. The orange trees are clear as day. The courtyard is full of them. It would be great having a garden full of orange trees. 17:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
cannot currently find the file name, but I have a place for this image Elinruby (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
my sister has a satsuma tree in her yard in California. The oranges are delicious but she has trouble with squirrels eating them before they are ripe enough to be picked. It is cool travelling through places where they grow in orchards, like parts of Florida and California, as you can usually get them for next to nothing at gas stations. Anyway, burqua is the word I suspected I was missing. Will fix that if we use the image. Also thanks for confirming oranges; I couldn't remember if I wrote that or just accepted it. Next question, should we use the image? It was there as an illustration for tiles, I think, but the woman is a distraction and the other three out of the batch of four it was in seemed to be better examples and less cluttered without it. Waiting for the temperature to drop a little more -- been soaking in cold water -- but intend to put in a solid session tonight. Should I put up another checklist?
I think the current image layout is good but some sections do not have images and I am not certain I have reviewed all of Nour's suggestions on the history talk page. The Jew with a coin episode, even if I was not involved in it, just the broader case, made me very wary of depictions that might be seen as stereotypical. There are several illustrations of clothing, not sure we have that straight. Manufacturing should be checked very carefully. If anything needs to be expanded at that end of the article though, the most important would be agriculture and urban society, I think. Tribal aristocracy Nour and I agonized over, word by word, so I am pretty sure what is there is accurate and I do not think either you and I are the best people to expand it. Should probably be reviewed again for intelligibility though. Elinruby (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a little too much vocabulary overall is one thought I am having. But yet in some cases you not only have to know the transliteration but all the spellings of it

Final runthrough: checklist

Overall is more polished at the top of the article. Later sections still need a little work. Elinruby (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)


  • 1 History
  • 1.1 16th century: Establishment
That section is fine as far as I can see. It is very dry, much dryer than I would normally use, but that could be ok, since it covering a huge period, 30 years in a one para. I linked a couple of things and a very slight copyedit but nothing much. I'm more worried about passive voice than anything and would likely refrain from trying to copyedit and bring that in. That is what worries me on the Lister article, i.e. the passive voice is there and it gets rejected. I did a GA on a spinning spark article, it was huge, but it got rejected at FA because of problem with passive voice. So will avoid doing copyedit to change stuff, except for spelling, linking and very light copyedit. scope_creepTalk 11:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Whatever you can do. But your changes so far have been good btw. My objection to people copyediting was to ESL people editing. Normally I am happy to clean up bad English but I have seen all of this a few too many times. Elinruby (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
If I understand correctly we are going straight to FA? Because they are less stringent about length than GA, apparently. spent some happy time with MoS last night and as far as I can tell we are following it with respect to people's titles and section headers; I looked at those in particular. Did you say to take the page numbers out of the bibliography? Elinruby (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
spinning spark? I need to charge my phone before I can do source verification, taking a break. I have slightly improved versions of some images and I think the Cercle militaire image needs to move. But we are getting there. Elinruby (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: User:Spinningspark No, we have to go through WP:GA first. Matarisvan hanged this on his last comment at the peer review, but I knew the comment was wrong anyway. Page numbers in the bib section. I think you shouldn't have them. I vaguely remember reading about it, they conflict with the ref. scope_creepTalk 15:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Any way to double-check? It would be a lot of work to put them back. I think the main place we have them is when the cited work is a chapter in an anthology. Re GA, I think that we more than meet the criteria assuming we catch all the embarrassing stuff. We may hear about length again, but come on. This is four hundred years of North African history. Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll ask at the GA board. scope_creepTalk 08:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Ask about images from the 1850s also. I didn't know there was a GA board Elinruby (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1.1.1 Barbarossa brothers
  • 1.1.2 Expansion of Algiers
Very odd short sentence "Beylerbey Uluç Ali Pasha against Tunis in 1569" scope_creepTalk 15:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: Can you check it as I've rearranged it. scope_creepTalk 16:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Section is ok apart from that. scope_creepTalk 16:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Will check. That sentence fragment sounds like ADD kicked in when I was doing a rewrite. That's the sort of thing I need to be checked for. As for passive voice, newspaper editors pound that one into you. I am actually pretty experienced with that. Maybe I can do a pass through Lister for you if we can ever stop working on this article. By the way, I submitted Angelita C. et al. v. California Department of Pesticide Regulation for peer review Elinruby (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: That would be really great re: Lister. I will check the Angelita on peer review. scope_creepTalk 08:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I looked it over and saw a missing caption, and I know the mural image needs fixing. But the references are already in sfn format for a start. Going to email you at some point today Elinruby (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Its only about 30% done. There is mountains of stuff to go into it. I plan to split it into five articles. scope_creepTalk 19:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1.2 17th century: Golden Age
  • 1.2.1 Algerian autonomy
"The European converts to Islam, known in Europe as renegades and turned Turks, formed mostly the tai'fa". "Formed mostly". I don't know what that means. Trying to get the refs. scope_creepTalk 20:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
tai'fa is not mentioned in ref 75 or 76. I got the 76 book but no mention of taifa. First part of the sentence is accurate. scope_creepTalk 20:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes some of what I am seeing might be from packing too much into one sentence. I would say "mostly" does not belong and shouldn't be "most of" either since although there were many European renegades unless there is a source I am skeptical about whether they were a majority of the corso. Elinruby (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 1.2.2 Foreign relations
  • 1.3 18th century: Regional power
  • 1.3.1 Maghrebi wars
  • 1.3.2 Dey-Pashas of Algiers
  • 1.4 19th century: End of the Regency of Algiers
  • 1.4.1 Internal crisis
  • 1.4.2 Barbary Wars
  • 1.4.3 French invasion
  • 2 Political status
  • 2.1 1516: Founding of Algiers
  • 2.1.1 Hayreddin's consolidation
  • 2.2 Ottoman Regency (1519–1659)
  • 2.2.1 Beylerbeylik period (1519–1587)
  • 2.2.2 Pashalik period (1587–1659)
  • 2.3 Sovereign Military Republic (1659–1830)
  • 2.3.1 Janissary revolution: Agha regime in 1659
  • 2.3.2 Deylik period (1671–1830)
  • 3 Administration
  • 3.1 Algerian stratocracy
  • 3.1.1 Dey of Algiers
  • 3.1.2 Cabinet
  • 3.1.3 Diwân council
  • 3.2 Territorial management
  • 4 Economy
  • 4.1 Algerian slave ransom economy
  • 4.2 Royalties and gifts
  • 4.3 Trade
  • 4.3.1 External trade
First sentence was uncited, fixed that. Ruedy failed verification and was removed. He does talk about wheat but doesn't say anything about it going to Marseille. Cannot verify Merouche, although this may be due to snippet view. Cannot verify Merouche blockquote, rewriting from scratch.Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)


  • 4.3.2 Internal trade
  • 4.4 Taxationp
  • 4.5 Agriculture
  • 4.6 Manufacturing and craftsmanship
was only partially reviewed on prior pass. Problems were found. On this pass so far the first source failed verification; this has been remedied. Elinruby (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 5 Society
  • 5.1 Urban population
Isichei reference verifies 10,000 number but does not call them a ruling class, so I removed that. Same cite also verifies what is now the second sentence. Elinruby (talk)
Stevens reference verified Elinruby (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 5.2 Social structures
1st ref extremely verified Elinruby (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 5.3 Tribal aristocracy
Merged the two sections above since "Social structures" already discussed tribes. Little to no effect except one less header; article has a few too many Elinruby (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 6 Culture
  • 6.1 Education
First statement still baffling Elinruby (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Second sentence is word for word from source, out of context, removing Elinruby (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Source is probably throwing a no target error, but the reference is valid if obscure and has some things to say.... not up for it right now though, will comment out Elinruby (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
this is still not done, but suddenly I need a break. #1 priority coming back. Elinruby (talk)
One reference is used elsewhere, so not no-target; removed the other and have it offline Elinruby (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
not sure what you are talking about but by the way I removed the paragraph the otherworldly schools not being the problem, the odjak's preoccupation with military matters was the problem, because there is an implicit "of course there is a problem, it's Algeria" schtick that French writers go into. Americans also, this is total part of their origin story also. Sigh. Decolonization is hard. There is a lot that could be said about schools but that paragraph took two different ideas and stuck them together, and cough I may attempt a rewording. Saw things in existing sources about Sufi brotherhoods forming an alliance with the Porte and maraboutic leaders launching insurrection. It isn't clear to me which entities should be in the info box, btw. I added the Kingdom of Kuku because it existed when the Regency was founded. It really would be nice to find a source or image specifically about the coffeehouses in the Regency of Algiers. Everything we had had some sort of copyright issue.Elinruby (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Gorguos reference does say that Elinruby (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I've fixed these missing refs. scope_creepTalk 15:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Missing refs? Elinruby (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
First paragraph is verified and/or rewritten. Please please please PLEASE discuss before changing anything. First part of the first sentence rewritten to deal with a minor discrepancy from sources; still need to find a better source than the ones at Tlemcen, which should be possible because this is BLUESKY. But I need a break now. Elinruby (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 6.2 Architecture
  • 6.3 Arts
  • 6.3.1 Crafts
  • 6.3.2 Music
1st reference verified.
Shannon reference checks out completely but we should add a flute and the coffeehouses
Hamdi reference in Arabic, statement does not seem controversial

Green tickY all references and wikilinks checked. Maybe expand a little.Elinruby (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  • 7 Legacy
Entelis pd verified as just fine
  • 8 See also
re-alphabetized
  • 9 Notes
note a very dense, needs a readability review
note b refers to Constantinople as "Istanbul", which was not its name until the 20th century, but it's in a quote so I guess that is ok Elinruby (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  • 10 References
  • 11 Bibliography
fixed some alphabetization problems and issues with what is a last name. At this point all items should have a location, a trans-title, and a link, although there is one recently added source that does not have a link. This happens to be the reference for a sentence in the education section that does not quite make sense, and has some issues of tone ("otherworldly" in reference to religious schools; sounds like French disdain to me) Elinruby (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby: They do now. The one that should make it perfect, is that the bib section shouldn't have page numbers. The other to resist, is multiple reference per line. I see a couple of reference with three sentences. They don't like that. scope_creepTalk 10:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I have not yet attempted to deal with overciting, but I think there is some. Are you saying sentences with three cites, or three sentences with one cite? Either way I agree Elinruby (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
One cite for one sentence only, not three cites. There is a couple, but it is minor. scope_creepTalk 15:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
found one of the triplets and addressed Elinruby (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Old ref

  • Shillington, Kevin (2013). Encyclopedia of African History. Vol. 3. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-45670-2.

References

The map

@Terrum3 can you explain your revert ? The cart I put is an academic source (from Larousse), not a nationalist map made by a user who has been blocked on the French Wikipedia that put "bled el ssiba" and "bled el makhzen" for Morocco but not the same for Algiers with "bled el turk" and "bled el baroud". Wikipedia has to be neutral 2A01:CB09:8018:E27E:917B:3D22:E340:818E (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The current map, unlike the map you tried to add ([6]), is based directly on a reliable source and has been supported by a consensus of editors (per discussions on this talk page and even elsewhere). Your claim that the creator of the map is blocked on the French Wikipedia appears to be false, and would not be relevant anyways in this case. It's obviously also you who made a frivolous deletion request on Wiki Commons ([7]). So far, your push for a different map seems to be purely based on your personal preference: please read Wikipedia's core content policies to understand what criteria actually decide the content of an article. R Prazeres (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Flag

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

Algerian autonomy section (resolved)

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. Green tickY diagnosed and fixed by Scope creep Elinruby (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

chaney reference (resolved)

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

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_creepTalk 15:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok but what's the journal then? Elinruby (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Explorations in Economic History. scope_creepTalk 19:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
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)

I'm back

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)

@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)
@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)
@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)
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)
Yes, Al-Jilali mentions his works with fountains, as well as his predecessor actually.[8]p.266 and [9] 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 [10] p.278 and p.279. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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.[1]
{{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

  1. ^ Sahraoui, Chergui & Belmeziti 2023, p. 399.

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

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)

Format issues

  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)

When did the Ottoman–Habsburg war end (resolved)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Merouche p. 139

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)

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)
  • 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)
    - Merouche's first book (2002) p.11 refers to this [11]
    - [12] 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)
    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)

Stacked flags

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)

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

Gorguos, A (1857)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Great ! if i have any more additions i will add them here. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Pere dan source [13] P 110 Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
Ok Elinruby (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
Does it. (Personal attack removed) Elinruby (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) Elinruby (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

@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)
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)
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)
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)
Already did...and also removed an unsourced and repetitive sentence. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Speaking of verifiability, some of your ce fail that, so i had to do this: [14], also it's not the first time you make spelling mistakes, like this one: [15], 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)
(Personal attack removed) Elinruby (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regency_of_Algiers/Archive_6&oldid=1250222691"