Talk:Franco–Algerian war (1681–1688)

January 2022

The overall result of all three event combined is WP:OR and has been removed. It shouldn't be restored without a supporting WP:RS that specifically describe it as such.

To stop the Infobox from becoming more of a mess than it already is, I have also adjusted the results of the three battles per what is stated in their respective articles; which is still far from what the guideline suggests. Should the disruption continues, then the removal of the result parameter (which if optional) altogether would have to be considered. M.Bitton (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

1690 marks a more conclusive end to the war with the peace treaty, while 1688 marks the final major combat. Therefore the page should be changed to 1681-1690. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDF444 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope, the war was over in 1688 (that's a fact). Frankly, this looks like an attempt to adjust the article's title to suit your relentless POV pushing. M.Bitton (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It more feels as if you're pushing your POV through the fact you need feel you need overall control and that your word on everything is final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDF444 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me remind you that you created the article and that you were fine with it until today (we know why that is). M.Bitton (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I know and on re-reading I see that the peace was concluded in 1690 and not began negotiations in 1690, so I accept my original statement and that this change was wrong, I genuinely thought I had made a mistake with the original date here. I stand by though that the objective (as stated in one of your sources) was to bring Algiers to terms and by 1690 therefore the long term strategic aim was achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDF444 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If you read the sources again you'll notice that one says: "the Dey exhibited no greater willingness than before to sign a treaty", while the other mentions that the 1688 bombardment "failed to subdue the unruly corsair" (making the expedition a failure). M.Bitton (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yet as we know, a treaty was signed concluding in 1690, do you agree that happened? The 'unruly corsair' is reference to a single captain who in turn went over to the Ottoman Empire and raided against the Venetians in the 1690s, not the French and this does not mean the whole of Algiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDF444 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You're obviously not even reading the sources that are presented to you. The unruly corsair is no other than Mezzomorto, the Dey of Algiers at the time (both sources already mentioned are about him. Here's another for good measure). M.Bitton (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

This source adds to what is mentioned on the page, that while the bombardment wasn’t a tactical success it did affect stability that forced him to flee Algiers. You didn’t answer my question either because you know the answer weakens your line of attack. TDF444 (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Also if you read back your sources you’ll realise that post 1688, he wasn’t Dey because he was forced to flee Algiers. TDF444 (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, you keep confirming what I suspected all along: you're simply incapable of reading the sources. M.Bitton (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Except I have read them and pulled parts out and questioned you about it and you keep confirming you are incapable of giving an answer. TDF444 (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC); edited 10:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have removed the content that is based on an old/unreliable source (obviously collected from the Internet's toilet to push a POV) and adjusted the content by what the recent source say. M.Bitton (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

One of the source you have presented - Alexander Mikaberidze (2011). Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World A Historical Encyclopedia. Quite literally includes the ‘internet toilet’ source in its further reading. TDF444 (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Essentially if we take Mikaberidze as a credible source then if he too is presenting Grammont as material to read (which has been reproduced in a 2002 edition) as credible then surely that is correct. Undoubtedly too if he has presented it he has used it. The source also doesn’t contradict others, naturally though parts of history are subjective and that’s where debate comes in (anyone who had studied the subject knows that.) and is one of the few more in depth on this subject. Otherwise it just appears to be POV of the editor. TDF444 (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Regardless, the fact of the matter is that you misrepresented what it says to push a POV. It's nearly impossible to assume that this wasn't done intentionally given the fact that this is at least the third source that you misrepresent. M.Bitton (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

June 2023

@Qaayush529: we have a reliable source that explicitly says that the French did not achieve their goals (see the main article). If anything, it should be described as a French defeat. M.Bitton (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Result of conflict

The result of the conflict should be slimmed down with the final result of ‘Peace Treaty’ as this is the only sourced overall result of the war that has been found by any editor. While the overall result is debated too between editors being: 1) Algiers preventing France from being too punitive in its raids and being able to begin their own raids. 2) France caused enough damage to Algiers that the next dey negotiated a peace to end raiding which was the main French objective. 3) No source provides a definitive result.

The result of each battle can be irrelevant to the overall result, for example if a victory in battle is so pyrrhic that a status quo ante bellum has to be negotiated.

While current state of the info box could be seen as confusing and not entirely relevant to the currently sourced overall result presented by anyone.

The simple ‘Peace Treaty’ result summarises the available information currently on offer on the overall result and the relevant information on each battle is easily accessible in the main body of the article and on each individual page. FR1914 (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I would also add that this box is just for the overall result of the war.

If new source material can be provided that makes clear who won or points of negotiation then this should be amended/added to the result box. FR1914 (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If you didn't do this, I would have bought the justification, but given the previous edit, I will have to disagree and suggest you refrain from edit warring and instead, wait and see if others agree with your change. M.Bitton (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)