Jump to content

Talk:Regency of Algiers/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Infobox map

Hi @Nourerrahmane‬, replying to you here in case it needs further discussion relevant to the article. I was going to write this message earlier, but I subsequently decided to try to fix the first map myself, which I'm still in the process of doing. I'll re-upload it as a new file on Commons and suggest it for use here. The cited source for that map is a reliable atlas, but this image misrepresents what that atlas shows, particularly to the west, where it treats the "outlying" (Bled es-Siba) Alawid territories as if they're unrelated to the Alawids, which of course is not the case and not in line with other WP:RS. It also adds Oujda on the Algerian side of the frontier for no clear reason, when the source itself doesn't show this. (My understanding from other sources is that Oujda changed hands several times throughout this period, so no point in trying to specify which side of the border it's on for a general period map.) I suspect there were POV reasons to make the map look that way when it was originally uploaded, so it's not something wrong with what you did on your end. If I don't end up making a usable corrected version of the map today, I think it's still better to keep the original map(s) for now, but hopefully I'll have it done quickly.

The second map is a replica of the primary sources previously shown here, as you said. Adding maps from historical documents is fine in my opinion so long as they're identified as such (like I said at Talk:Alawi dynasty), but they shouldn't be re-used like secondary sources, and if we have reliable secondary sources we should just prioritize those. Most infoboxes have only one map/image like this, so after this we should really keep one for general summary purposes there, and use any other maps/images inline instead where relevant. R Prazeres (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification, the thing is, with both maps, there were attemps to remove/change them in commons about a year ago, however a consensus was made there to keep them which is why i was prompt to add them in the infobox.
Speaking of Oujda, according to the sources in this article at least (Intro + Maghrebi wars section), the moulouya river served as a border between the Regency and the two Sharifian dynasties well into early 19th century. Oujda is shown here [1] .In this source [2] Oujda is not highlighted yet looking at the location of the city of tlemcen (Black dot west of Oran) we can assume that map of the regency includes Oujda as well since this city borders the city of Tlemcen to the west. It's worth checking more about this subject though. do we really need to include it ? I dunno
Regarding the old maps, I agree with you. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, Commons is not really the place to be making those arguments, much less to be edit-warring over it, which is also why I'll upload any new version as a separate file. If I had to visually guess it, I'd probably agree with you about where Oujda would be on that map, but the atlas is not precise enough to this level of detail to pinpoint exactly where missing cities should be, and the border is close enough to Tlemcen that someone could argue otherwise. There are other sources which explicitly say Oujda was under Alawi control for much of the period (e.g. EI2), so historically it varied. My argument is to follow the authors' example and just leave it out, and at the same time hopefully discourage any recurring POV disruptions over this single detail of the border. R Prazeres (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, that was fast @R Prazeres, I love your work, hope this map will get generalised and thus hopefully put an end to disputes. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I'm glad it looks ok. (I'm no graphic artist!) For a description of the changes between this version and the old/original version on Commons, per the issues I discussed above, see the file description's talk page (here).
If we'd like to keep using any of the former maps, then like I said I think we should use the original historical image (for transparency) and place it inline in the most relevant section (since it's map of 1830, I'd recommend the section that talks about the end of the Regency period). But I don't think it's necessary either.
PS: Nourerrahmane, I just noticed that in this edit you also seemed to make other minor changes elsewhere. I didn't notice them before so feel free to redo them. Recommendation for the future, if relevant: try not to mix you main edit with smaller, unconnected changes, so it's easier to revert and discuss the main edit without affecting any secondary edits. R Prazeres (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Concerning the "Bled Siba", I think it should be made clear that it's the land of dissidence (lawless area). M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
That's the literal translation, but the practical meaning of that term is more controversial and Alawid authority here varied from period to period (e.g. see Maddy-Weitzman 2011, p.53-54). Since the original source doesn't specify further, I don't feel it's a good idea to include additional commentary into the image itself, not to mention conciseness and the limited space available. This is the kind of information that should be included in Alawi dynasty and/or History of Morocco. R Prazeres (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the translation was yours, but if it's in the source, then that's fine I guess. M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a map for Maghrebi wars subsection in early 18th century File:Map of the Barbary states in 1707.jpg, and this map for the End of the Spanish Algerian wars in late 18th century File:Map of Algiers.png. both are in the article so i think they should be enough. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why a 1707 map should be more relevant than the 1824 one (just before the French invasion) that was removed. M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh i mean they were added to the adequate subsections, i wouldn't mind adding that 1822 or 1824 map as a maximum extent map though. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Please do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that the 1707 one is kept only because it mentions the kingdom of Algiers. M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I readded Finley's map of Algiers (1824), want me to reduce the the size of the 1707 map ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. For the rest, you do as you see fit (I'm too tired to think properly). M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Removed, we have enough historical maps in the article i believe, anyone who's interested in maps and their exact timeline can go check Commons. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Map

Hi' i suggest to use another map like a real map, like Samuel Dunn's map or L.H.Berth or Anthony Finley this one is very confusing because according to the historical sources some of the territories in the west were Algerian and some were Bilad Essiba, never was alawid. Algeriancorsair (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above. The current infobox map is based on reliable sources and, as Wikipedia policy requires, and the Samuel Dunn map is additionally included further below in the article. R Prazeres (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus about the flag of the regency

Although i was the one that put the flag on the infobox, i still beleive there is a need for a consensus about it, do contributors find its sources reliable and informative enough ? if yes, is it need to have it in the infobox ? and if also yes, is it better to have the two variants or just one ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: Hi, the sources you provided in the file descriptions for these two flags seem solid enough. I'm currently creating an expansion of the section "history" from the article about the Algerian flag in my sandbox and this is the period with I have the biggest problem. I would appreciate help from someone with more knowledge. As for this article, I propose to leave it as it is until the development of this issue appears in "Flag of Algeria". Then you will be able to leave one of the flags with a note that it is just one of many and a link.
P.S.
I also think it is a good idea to have a separate article about the Barbarossa flag, which seems to have been preserved in more than one copy and whose design appears informally on Turkish Navy ships. And I would like help with this idea too.Swiãtopôłk (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
since I am all over the article at the moment, just noting that I have no opinion about the flag and am fine with whatever gets decided.
I do have a few things to say about some of the copyediting I'm doing and will start another section about that. Elinruby (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Notes on English, tags

i am pretty sure I worked on this article three or four years ago. If not it was something closely related. At the time I said it needed an Arabic speaker, so this is important work you are doing. However I did delete some text for tone: "dull effect of Sufism", for example. Or holy war against the Christians: This needs to very clearly be an indirect quote, not something you, or worse yet, Wikipedia, is saying.

There is nothing wrong with 18th-century sources about the 16th century, but more recent historiography should also be included. Pretty sure modern sources do better than claiming that French colonialism brought "western civilization" to Algeria. But I am also positive that this was exactly the thinking in the early 19th century, so it belongs here; it's just not the whole story. I can help with French attitudes if that's hard. Has anyone had a chat with you about NPOV? Not saying that *you* are not neutral: the text I removed was non-neutral from different points of view, so you have the right idea. But sources that old are going to be bigoted, often shockingly so, and need to be carefully quoted. I can help with questions about this if needed. I am trying to leave edit summaries that explain the non-routine edits..

  • rs tags: I don't see how those references to "drive.google.com" can possibly be verifiable; pretty sure something needs to be fixed there. That translation you mentioned elsewhere?
  • what tags: I am genuinely confused about something; in edit mode you will see a parameter that tells you what the question is

Some notes on English to learn:

  • English does not always require "the" in the same way that French requires "Le", "la" or "les". When there is no article, usually it means something like "des". All non-native speakers get this wrong, so keep this in mind but don't stress over it. i am just explaining because I made this change quite a lot.
  • Titles: lower case if generic (the generals, a president for our time, a commander) and capitalized if the title refers specifically to one person: (Khider Pasha, King Richard, President Biden)

More later, hope that helps meanwhile Elinruby (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Elinruby; Again thank you for this massive copy edit and your advices, they sure will be of great help in the future, so regarding sources, I beleive you speak about "Henri delmas de grammont" (19th century) and "Diego de Haedo" (16th century), though old sources, they are very famous and pretty much mentionned in most reliable scholarly sources, that's why i used some of their quotes.
As for the quote about french civilization in Algeria, this was a claim made Jean Baptiste Wolf, the American historian; And i brought a response to this claim by Algerian historian "Mahfoud Keddache" in order to give the legacy section and the article as a whole the needed WP:Neutral point of view, which is why i used the most trusted Algerian sources such as :Keddache, Al Djilali, Bouaziz and Saidouni, supported by secondary english and french sources i found, since this article is all about having multilanguistic WP:Verifiability from reliable and well known sources. So i really need your help in this matter (btw i will add a RS to the "Society" subsection since its content is a pretty much a translation and rewriting from a single arabic source). Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I sort of got that but I was strictly thinking about language mechanics last night. Maybe I got a little dogmatic. Feel free to put things back if that feels like a good udea. But yes, I do remember that wolf was pretty ethnocentric, and it seemed to me to French source was too. I was shocked to see that Wolf was mid-20th century. When I come back I will go into sources and will examine that passage in particular if you don't think I did it justice. on the economy, a lot of small transactions go into it. I was trying to do something economic at Black market in wartime France, which I translated then expanded, then got bogged down in detail. But some of the detail from the French article is good. mMaybe you have some suggestions ;)

Map selection

Each time I visit this article I find the main map of the Regency replaced with a new one. I do suspect Moroccan expansionism as I've noticed that the selected new maps always show a smaller Algiers next to a much bigger Morocco that encompasses Morocco's modern claims of the western part of the Algerian desert. The same claims that led to the Sand War in 1963. 

There are historical maps and documents predating French colonization that prove that those territories were controlled by the Regency. History musn't compromise with modern political agendas.

Please keep your propaganda war outside of Wikipedia. 197.204.80.6 (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:Consensus and WP:Verfiability (see here: Talk:Regency of Algiers/Archive 2) : The current infobox map is based on reliable sources and, as Wikipedia policy requires, and 3 historical maps are additionally included further below in the article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The infobox map is not a reliable source. Finley's pre-French colonization map offers a firsthand and more dependable account. Also consider that Peter Sluglett's specialization is in Iraqi history, not the Maghreb. So a detailed contemporary map of the time trumps a vague map sketched by a historian who is not in his area of expertise.
This is clearly political. There is no other reason one would go out of his way to change a perfectly detailed reliable map of the time to replace it with a vague one produced by a modern historian with no credentials over the area. 105.98.205.135 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
If there's any politics here, it's whatever you're bringing into it, not other editors. Please read WP:AGF. We have clear policies on Wikipedia on what constitutes reliable sources, including an emphasis on secondary sources. The map in the infobox is consistent with such sources, and as Nourerrahmane pointed out, the historical maps are additionally included in the article, in relevant sections. Do not edit-war again, as you did here. R Prazeres (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Please explain to me why Sluglett's map, who is not even in his area of expertise trumps that of Finley's? It seems to me that the latter is far more reliable than the former. 105.98.205.135 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Read WP:OR. Neither you, I, or other Wikipedia editors are in any position to determine that certain primary sources should trump secondary sources written by professional historians. And either way, that's a silly excuse for claiming that Sluglett & Currie is unreliable. R Prazeres (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
You are deciding what Trumps what. I used an extremely detailed map of the time. You guys replaced it with a vague map of someone who is not even an expert on the Maghreb. So I beg to understand, when you changed it, how did you conclude that Sluglett's is more reliable than Finley's? 105.98.205.135 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Map looks pretty reliable to me, it does a good job showing the Siba territory (which changed over time), same could be said about Algiers, as its most westerner borders changed very often, we cannot speak about fixed borders between Algiers and the Sharifian Sultanate but at least the map is showing what each side controlled for certain. This map looks very similar to historical maps of Algiers in 1829-1830…so why focus solely on finely’s map ? Best thing to do in this case is adding few additional historical maps to adequate sections for more clarification on the geopolitics of the time. Same could be said for the Saadi dynasty map which originates from the same secondary source. No matter what nationalist POVs for both of these articles might claim otherwise.
And if you ask me and this is just my opinion since I don’t believe it’s our subject…I find it silly that any former colony/protectorate might claim any territory based on former Sultanates or religious/tribal based geopolitical entity. These were not nation states. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
It's certain that Algiers controlled the West and Southern Western areas for a noticeable amount of time, yet the map only shows Moroccan control over them, with the light green.
There are dozens of maps,from the era, and centuries prior that show that Algiers controlled that portion of land more often than not. So why focus on Finley's map? Well, one it's more accurate, and just a few years before colonization too, which was already a period of decline for Algiers. So despite its decline, it controlled those areas. Therefore Finley's map is more accurate of the time but it is also accurately representative for a longer period of time. It's also far more detailed, and precise, which is the opposite of the map provided, which has no place in this article, because there are many other maps from that era that are far more reliable. If it was about just adding other maps, why make that one, a flawed one, the official map of the infobox? I can't lie I find extremely suspicious.
You may find it silly that modern states use these maps to justify imperialism, but they do. Morocco did it to justify the invasion of Western Sahara and it's war against Algeria in 1963.
So please, stop engaging in war editing. Amidon Reis (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
You are the one edit-warring, Amidon Reis, by repeatedly restoring your edit against established consensus. That's what WP:STATUSQUO, WP:BRD, and WP:EDITWAR itself are about. You have not provided any proper reasoning or reliable sources for your preference, and you have simply repeated your own opinion (WP:OR) despite the explanations given above. I am reverting your edit one last time. If you continue this behaviour after all these warnings, you will be reported to administrators. R Prazeres (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
You are the one engaging in war editing, and have been editing the map of the regency since November. And from your editing history and interests you are clearly Moroccan, which I guess is why there's this obsession over the maps given the current political climate in the region. Stop ear editing, the map provided is sourced and more accurate. If you disagree, prove it instead of abusing your administrator position. Amidon Reis (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
You don’t get to declare what’s accurate without consensus, you tend to ignore what secondary sources are there for and thus you remove what doesn’t suit you, despite primary sources being already included in the article, which makes me believe you’re up for a nationalist agenda. You WP: I just don’t like it and this is not a reason to remove it, you’ll get sanctioned if you revert again without consensus. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
How is using historical maps of the era a nationalist agenda? If you believe your map is more accurate prove it.
This is borderline pathetic. Amidon Reis (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Update and low-priority reference format suggestions

I may have found some sources, and will add a list in another section. I probably won't have time to vet them past the title, so if they work for you, good, if not oh well. Just suggestions.

I am also going to take the copy-edit banner off since, correct me if I am wrong, I said I would work with you on English and you were good with that. So any whatevers are getting handled, right? This will avoid people coming in and running english-language spell-checkers, which isn't really what you need

Just a couple of things I noticed, no big deal

  • Trans-title is recommended, also lang, particularly When it's Arabic, since people like me can't distinguish it from Persian or other languages that use a similar script. I am not sure since I haven't dealt much with Arabic but you maybe should use script as well. I will add some documentation here about that later.

pages vs page vs at:

excruciatingly detailed documentation here
  • page: The number of a single page in the source that supports the content. Use either |page= or |pages=, but not both. Displays preceded by p. unless |no-pp=yes. If hyphenated, use {{hyphen}} to indicate this is intentional (e.g. |page=3{{hyphen}}12), otherwise several editors and semi-automated tools will assume this was a misuse of the parameter to indicate a page range and will convert |page=3-12 to |pages=3{{ndash}}12. Alias: p.
  • OR: pages: A range of pages in the source that supports the content. Use either |page= or |pages=, but not both. Separate using an en dash (–); separate non-sequential pages with a comma (,); do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source. Displays preceded by pp. unless |no-pp=yes.
    Hyphens are automatically converted to en dashes; if hyphens are appropriate because individual page numbers contain hyphens, for example: pp. 3-1–3-15, use double parentheses to tell the template to display the value of |pages= without processing it, and use {{hyphen}} to indicate to editors that a hyphen is really intended: |pages=((3{{hyphen}}1{{ndash}}3{{hyphen}}15)). Alternatively, use |at=, like this: |at=pp. 3-1–3-15. Alias: pp.
    • no-pp: Set to yes, y, or true to suppress the p. or pp. notations where this is inappropriate; for example, where |page=Front cover or |pages=passim.
  • OR: at: For sources where a page number is inappropriate or insufficient. Overridden by |page= or |pages=. Use only one of |page=, |pages=, or |at=.
    Examples: page (p.) or pages (pp.); section (sec.), column (col.), paragraph (para.); track; hours, minutes and seconds; act, scene, canto, book, part, folio, stanza, back cover, liner notes, indicia, colophon, dust jacket, verse.
  • For |quote-page= and |quote-pages= used in conjunction with |quote=, see here.

Elinruby (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Works well for me, and your contribution was really helpful, and I wouldn’t mind if you add more sources, I think it’s even preferable this way. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I used one of the sources you posted regarding taxes, it was very informative, might check others if needed, i believe that the article does meet the criteria for B-Class status by now. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I get the impression that I am making you feel defensive. Listen, in terms of "need" -- no I am not saying you *need* sources, but the more the better, you know. There is no downside to a bibliography either. I am rather cynical about the rating system, but yes, it probably does meet B criteria. I can check if you want.
It is also true however that this is a topic with poor coverage on on English Wikipedia, and speaking as your North American focus group, there is thr potential here for a truly fantastic article. Daily life topics are a trend in historiography but what makes this one special is the Arabic sources and the focus on commerce. The fact that it has pirates and empires and exotic trade doesn't hurt a bit either. I don't want to crowd you or push you; there is no deadline, and I can't do what you are doing. I'll just check the English every so often and talk about stylebook-type topics over here.
I take it that you don't find these sources objectionable then? If not I will create Further Reading section with them at some point, except for the one you are already using in rwferences. If you have some Arabic or English articles that are of interest but not yet being used, they can go in also at some point. It helps people rating the article to understand its potential, and encourages other editors to take an interest in the topic Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@Elinruby i'm nowhere at odds with the sources you put here, except the last source which is off topic (speaks about wheat production in modern Algerian republic), all other sources are useful even if not always needed in this article,that's what i meant, the first source is rather useful for this article: Beylik of constantine.The source about taxation is extremely informative as it gives a lot of details about how taxes were due in this period, i actually used in the article, so please don't feel i'm disturbed by your contribution, you're older than me in Wikipédia and this is a free encyclopedia and this article is yours just like it is mine or everyone else's, I'm open to all of your suggestions and i agree with the fact that the more sources are there in the article the better. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure but adding in material from Arabic sources is really important and I don't want to get in the way of that. Last article - oops. Will rely less on Persée's search function and obviously omit that one.

(later)These may adjoin some of the stuff you are getting out of that Arabic text (?) When you get a chance, could you make sure I'm not including any notorious fabulist or whatever? Assuming they seem reasonably appropriate to you I'll do the cite web formatting and start a bibliography for consideration as sources. The French have cubic kilometers of archives but those would be primary sources of course.
on another note, I will figure out why the collapse template in making the text below it not display, Apparently I missed something in the documentation.
Proposed bibliography items
  • Pierre Boyer, La vie quotidienne à Alger à la veille de l'intervention française R. Le Tourneau Revue de l'Occident musulman et de la Méditerranée 1966 1 pp.246-248

Régence d'Alger (vers 1725) Denise Brahimi Dix-Huitième Siècle 1975 7pp. 87-104

Makhzen

@Nourerrahmane: since you created the Makhzen (Algeria) article, I suggest you add a link to it from this article as well as the Makhzen article (whose lead would also need adjusting). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@M.Bitton Can you edit in the article ? i can't, it shows errors like these : [d53796c4-942d-47ed-84c4-e5d9112d1031] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError and Server returned error: HTTP 500. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane: these kind of errors are server based and to resolve themselves fairly quickly (you could try logging out, clearing the cache and logging in again). Which article you are referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This one Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I just did. M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Alright I’ll retry later, thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

why are morrocans messing with the regency map??

Hello,

I just want to know why Moroccans who haven't edited anything on the "Regency of Algiers" page (a part from the map) come back again and again just to change the regency map? There are many well-documented and credible REAL maps that agree on the actual size and maximum reach of the Algiers regency and yet they continue to change these maps with non-credible colored drawing that does not correspond to the period before colonization (1830)? Hafou (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright check this out:
[3] (Djilali's General history of Algeria, 1994, p 34)
[4] (Julien's History of north Africa, 1970, p 243),
[5] (Sluglett's atlas of islamic history, 2014. p 68)
[6] (Mounis' atlas of islamic history, 1987, p 170)
[7] (Bouaziz's Brief history of Algeria (Part 2), 2007, p 153)
Been using these secondary sources a lot in the article, i'm sorry but they can't all be all mistaken regarding the map of the regency; please check the explanation given above in this discussion: "Map selection". Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I've already done that. I also noticed that, judging by the history of these users who modify the map, we can easily determine that they are either new users (who created the account just to change the map and who do not have any major contribution to the website), or from users whose area of focus is Morocco. How can this be tolerated? there are clearly signs of bad intentions on the part of Moroccan nationalists who are trying to impose their nationalist narrative by devious methods. This issue needs to be clarified. Hafou (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Non of these are experts on the region, and no modern day map superceds one that is crafted in that era. Amidon Reis (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Darqawiyya revolt

Is the revolt that happened in the west of the regency (Tlemcen) in 1803 related? 808 AD (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the history of the Regency. M.Bitton (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Why? It is basically a revolt against the Turkish rule in the regency. Also, some revolts already covered there in the article, among them there is the Darqawiyya one. 808 AD (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
You had the answer to your question. I have no intention of entertaining your usual time sinks. M.Bitton (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
No, you haven't answered the question properly. At least give some reasons why you think it's irrelevant. And i'm not here for "entertainment". 808 AD (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I have no time for SPAs (usually socks). M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
What does that even mean? 808 AD (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@M.Bitton I think you misunderstood me. My question was whether the Tlemcen 1803-1805 revolt is related to the Darqawiyya revolt that begun in Canstantine which is already covered in the article. (Not to the history of the regency). 808 AD (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Please don't ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what is the problem with you, it seems like you don't like my opinions, which is alright. It's Ok, The same goes with you. Don't ever answer my messages unless it was directed to you. (You haven't halped me at anything anyway) 808 AD (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I got the answer. It's Yes. And unlike what has been said by the other editor here, it's a relevant to the regency's history. See this https://books.google.co.ma/books?id=_NDLCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA167&dq=darqawiyya+revolt&hl=fr&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiimsn1x_iCAxVHTKQEHREZDAIQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=darqawiyya%20revolt&f=false the author makes it clear as he included it the part in which he treats the regency of Algiers.
I would like to add some content about the subject. Is that ok? 808 AD (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: I already added sourced content there, the regency article is too big, maybe you want to create another article about this subject in detail, though this revolt must be put in its political context which is the decline of the dey regime and the moroccan algerian conflicts. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the Moroccan-Algerian conflicts. It's a relatively important event of regency's history. You added the Darqawiyya revolt but you missed some of its important events. 808 AD (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I added secondary sources relating to Moroccan intrigues which were pretty much mentionned by many sources, even if Abun-nasr didn't mention that), and besides, this revolt has a good summary, this article is not about this revolt, and i oppose adding more about it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The OP who is now engaged in an edit war needs to remember that WP:ONUS is a policy. I suggest moving that section to the Darqawiyya article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@808 AD apart from engaging in WP:edit warring and not respecting WP:Consensus...
You said "It has nothing to do with the Moroccan-Algerian conflicts" and then we see in the article: "As Tlemcen proclaimed its allegiance to the Moroccan Sultan". Not gonna comment on how much misleading and cherry picked this statement is, but it's obvious that this revolt had everything to do with Morocco as i pointed out above, the rest of what you added is badly written and not coherent with what's already there, as if you wanted to emphesise that "Tlemcen pleged alliegence to Morocco" only. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
They moved their POV to the Darqawiyya (what a surprise). M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
It belongs to both artciles. And it's not my "Pov". You can read the sources, they are already there. 808 AD (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane, don't discuss me. Doscuss the sources that are there. 808 AD (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane and Skitash: since trying to reason with the OP is clearly a waste of time, what do you think of summarizing that section and leaving a main link to the Darqawiyya article (that needs watching and cleaning up)? M.Bitton (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Support. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane: no need to wait, go ahead and do it. M.Bitton (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Done. Hope it's good enough. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I have removed the link to the main article since it's more about the Tariqa than the rebellion. If and when that article become properly written and free of political POV, we'll think about linking to one of its sections. M.Bitton (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
What political POV? I did nothing but bringing what the reliable source says. The only case in which you can blame me would be if I didn't stick to its content, which is of course intolerable. 808 AD (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Support. Skitash (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@Skitash: thanks. Feel free to adjust both article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. As i already said, it is part of the history of the regency and it is more relevant than 40% of the article, since it is related to the decline of the Turkish dey rule in the regency. For example Jamil M. Abun-nasr includes it in the part in which he treats the regency of Algiers. 808 AD (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@M.Bitton I would support it if you summarize it in the right way. Show me an example. 808 AD (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Your support is as irrelevant as your oppose and since you don't respect people's wishes (about not wanting to be pinged), I will go ahead and mute you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
So you're just cherry-picking whose support is irrelevant and whose not? 808 AD (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I pinged you because we have three editors here, and my message was directed to you. 808 AD (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane of course it is related to Morocco. But it's not related to the Moroccan-Algerian conflicts. Read the source in order to understand why. (Especially the Knut S.Vikør's one) 808 AD (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Regency of Algiers/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 23:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I see that the nominator added a lot of content to the article. However, one major problem sadly warrants a WP:QUICKFAIL. There is still a Template:Very long cleanup template on top of the page. The article stands at above 20,000 words. Articles with more than 15,000 words almost certainly should be divided or trimmed according to WP:TOOBIG. I urge for a major cleanup before renomination. Aintabli (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aintabli: out of interest, which word count tool (if any) are you using? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@M.Bitton, WP:Prosesize does it. Aintabli (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@Aintabli Hello, thank you for your feedback, do you think the issue is solved by now ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Nourerrahmane, the issue isn't completely solved, but it's really nice that you were so quick. The article now has 16,135 words, much better than 20,000+. Some more trimming is still needed. Aintabli (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@Aintabli Done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 03:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane A few more suggestions: You might want to consider somewhat reducing the number of images used, remove the references in the lead, and make sure all the information there is mentioned in the body so that it is merely a summary. Please also remove "main article" hatnotes that are clearly not pointing to the "main article". For example, viceroy cannot be the main article of Regency of Algiers#Ottoman Viceroyalty of Algiers (1519-1659). Aintabli (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@Aintabli Done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@Aintabli: Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Long article

@Hohum Hello, I don’t think the article needs more trimming or cutting off materials for the sake of comprehensiveness. I believe that such articles are supposed to be relatively long.

Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

They are not supposed to be this long. WP:SIZERULE. This has been mentioned multiple times before. (Hohum @) 19:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Any advices based on your knowledge about this article ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@M.Bitton @Skitash @R Prazeres Hi, do you believe we should reduce the size of this article ? If so how about making Regency of Algiers#Political status and Odjak of Algiers#Stratocratic elite into a single article ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The size of the article can be reduced without creating new ones. Summarizing is probably what's needed at this stage. M.Bitton (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I would probably need help for that, it's hard for me to tell what's less important than the other in the this article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Apologies if I was abrupt, you have put a lot of work into this article, and being criticized is difficult enough. Perhaps target any sections that have a "main" link by summarizing anything but the most relevant information for the context of this article. (Hohum @) 15:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
It's OK, i made some more summarizing today, might need more time to see what else could be condensed. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
What others have said above are good general suggestions. One small but easy thing you can do is remove the long quotes that are still in the article and replace them with shorter paraphrases. Per MOS:QUOTE, we try to use quotes sparingly in encyclopedic writing. Also, don't feel like you have to things quickly; it's normal for an article to take a long time to get to GA status, so take whatever time you need. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I forgot to add: if it's necessary or useful for readers to see, you can include quotes inside the citations instead of inline, which I believe does not count towards the "page size". R Prazeres (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I second R Prazeres' advice about not rushing things. Before nominating it again, I suggest you let the article stabilize for a bit so that others have the time to review it properly and see what's missing. For instance, I wanted to add a mention of the Algerian cloth (the fashion of the Algerian corsairs that was adopted throughout the Ottoman empire, especially Istanbul), but I just couldn't, given that the issue of the size has become too important (for the sake of GA status). M.Bitton (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree with both of you, this article may need contribution from other editors because i really don't know what's really indispensable and what's not at this point. I did my best to condense it as best i could per recommendations. And besides i want to work more on the Corsairs of Algiers article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@M.Bitton you can replace some or all of the Art subsection with what you want to add, i'm intrested about this matter because it's an important cultural aspect of medern Algeria. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll look into it once I have time. BTW, the size of readable prose is now 13,669 words. M.Bitton (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Minor change

Well the name in Arabic دولة الجزائر mean Algerian state while we talk about regency of algiers=إيالة الجزائر @Nourerrahmane Shadi (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

What is this ?

I don't understand a thing about this revert of my 3 days work. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Mathglot can further explain. I see the problem is the use of Harvsp templates, but I don't use these so I can't really comment. Is there a way we could avoid the revert and convert the refs from harvsp into sfn (for example), or is that definitely more work? R Prazeres (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
R Prazeres, yes, that is exactly what is going on, and conversion to sfn's is partly done, and ongoing. Nourerrahmane, I'm really very sorry, and I wish I had gotten here just a few days earlier and saved you the trouble. I think we are both trying to do the same thing, which is to get the article referencing to a rational system where editors can understand it, and more easily edit the article. The problem is that before you got here, there were hundreds of inscrutable, numeric ref names introduced by Visual Editor, which are easily convertible to rational names (from, say, <ref name=":612">...</ref> to <ref name="Crowley-2013">...</ref>) by the RefRenamer script; but after your changes, the numeric names were essentially frozen into place, no longer accessible to the script making it difficult-to-impossible to rationalize the ref names. The undo made them accessible again, and the actual conversion to rational refnames by the script happens in a few seconds for the whole article. That left the situation that R Prazeres noticed with the {{harvsp}} templates, and the next step is converting to sfn, which is continuing. I apologize for the inconvenience. The end result is that you'll have very natural, clear, ref names and any editor will be able to see what a reference refers to, instead of having to hunt down what the heck is "ref name=":145"? I should be done very shortly; please stand by. Mathglot (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh i see, well you know better than me how to do this so i'll stand by, at least i'll learn something new and more efficient. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Mathglot. Nourrahmane: I personally find sfn easy to use, let me know if you need more explanation for it. R Prazeres (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, the conversion is done; there are no more inscrutable ref names, and everything is linked (including some stuff that was broken before your recent edits). Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Seems there is a way, in that case why the revert ? especially since i made additions in the prose itself. And honestly i don't know how to use sfn. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
There is/was a way, just before you started, but not afterward (not your fault; it's the nature of {{harvsp}} embedded in named refs, and the ease of converting them). Very sorry about the changes to the prose: I will go back and try to restore them. Please stand by... Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Nourerrahmane, Your consolidation of inline citations and moving them to the bibliography instead with just short citations in the body is helpful. Before I start restoration, I just wanted to check in with you first to make sure we're on the same page. I'm looking at the changes made in these 11 edits, and I see your changes as breaking down roughly into these types:
Types of changes
  1. newly added prose (you mentioned this, but I haven't seen this so far; but see #5)
  2. conversion of inline cite to harvsp + bibliographic cite; e.g.: BRAUDEL (1990); Pitcher (1972); Belam-2005
  3. addition of new inline cite (see below)
  4. change of one inline cite for another
  5. change of cited prose to different prose and new cite
  6. conversion of citations in vertical format (newline before each param) to horizontal format in bibliography: e.g., Brill (1987); Paris: UNESCO (2005)
  7. Reduction of multiple cites in favor of fewer or different cites (e.g., Lyman, Kraska, Lowenheim, Toll, Atanassow, to Atanassow, Spencer, Panzac)
Have I missed any major type of change? These are just examples; there are many more changes than these, but I just wanted to make sure if this seems like the kind of things that need looking into. In particular, I haven't seen any additions of completely new text, but I haven't looked at the whole thing, yet. If this looks right to you, I'll start. Mathglot (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
That’s pretty much what I worked on since January 14th, so you’re good to go. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
RL intervened, plus I ran out of steam. There are still 39 named refs to be converted, and I'll probably get to them tomorrow. Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Bundled, bulleted references

There are a bunch of references that contain a sort of citation bundling in them that had bulleted, bundled citations, that doesn't seem to serve any purpose, and is standing in the way of proper resolution of the other issues with named {{Harvsp}}s. To see what I mean, look at Lyman (1828), which has four bullets under it and a total of five citations. (As it turns out, the four bullets refer to sources that are never used in the body of the article, so once they are unbundled, they should get moved to "Further reading".) Some of these are now unbundled, but several more still to go. Also, converting ones that have authors in Arabic script to Latin characters as I go for easier reuse of references. (Not changing the references in the Bibliography, just the linkage, so you can now say {{sfn|Al-Jilali|1994}} and get Al-Jilali (1994) instead of having to use the Arabic author name as it was before.)

Unbundling and removing and some transliteration of linkage

 Done. Formerly bundled citations now unbundled. Mathglot (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Quick note about this (Abun-Nasr reference date), in the unlikely case it does come up in the future: yes, it should be 1987 according to the title and link in the bibliography. Abun-Nasr does have a 1971 book which is the predecessor to his 1987 book, but the latter is a rewrite, not a new edition ([8]). The 1971 book has a slightly different title ("A History of the Maghrib" as opposed to "A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic period") and I don't think many people would have access to it. R Prazeres (talk) 09:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
You must have been reading my mind (as well as the edit summary) as I was halfway through a new subsection discussion of what was going on just with that one ref, but it involved going way back and four revisions showing different ref names, from 1999, to 1971 (though the pub date was 1987) to 1987, and the whole thing was such a mess (even with the permalinks to several old revisions) that I thought it would look like an impossible rat's nest to disentangle, and I ended up just hinting at it in the edit summary. Mostly the ref adjustment is tedious but straightforward, but every once in a while there's a muddle like that one. So, thanks for weighing in; it's good to know someone is watching. Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Done for now

@Nourerrahmane and R Prazeres: the rationalization of the references had a lot of tentacles than weren't visible at first glance, but I've managed to finish consolidating and improving the worst of it. It should also be a lot easier for non-Arabic reading editors to cite existing sources, as most or all of them now have romanized authors and titles added in the § Bibliography section. There's plenty more that could be done, but I feel like this is a good stopping point. If you see anything that looks buggy or something I missed, please let me know. Nourerrahmane, you mentioned somewhere being less familiar with use of {{sfn}}; I think you'll pick it up pretty quickly, because it's just like the {{harvsp}} templates, except without being embedded between <ref> ... </ref> tags. In a few cases where it's more complex due to use of param |ref= in the citation in the § Bibliography section, I've added hidden advice showing exactly how to code the sfn right next to the citation itself. Let me know if this is sufficient. Mathglot (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits lost full citations

Hi, Nourerrahmane. I noticed these 9 contributions of yours at the article, and currently (as of rev. 1204868429 of 06:32 8 February) there are 30 citations that have been lost, with citations in the § References section that no longer point to anything, although they were all working before this recent run. Three examples are: citations #33 Crowley (2013), #34 Roberts (2014), and #55 Fage (1975) (there are 27 more). Are you planning to fix these? It will be easier to spot the unlinked (lost) citations if you install Trappist's user script; see User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors for instructions. Alternatively, it may be easier to roll back and try again. Also, I noticed you mixed some content changes with the citation changes in a single, large edit; that's a pity, because it means you can't undo just the citation changes, or just the content changes in a single click. It will probably easier to not mix them, and also to bunch the citation changes in smaller bundles so you're not faced with undoing a 5kb change and ten citations, if only one of them is wrong. Mathglot (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you mixed content edits and citation changes, it's probably easier not to roll back. With Trappist's script, you can find out the list of 30 citations that were removed, then edit the revision just before you started this round of edits, i.e., rev. 1202464181 of 20:51, 2 February 2024, copy the 30 citations out of the body into an offline file, close the edit without publishing, open the latest version for editing, and add the 30 citations to the Bibliography section (minus the '<ref>' tags, and in alphabetical order). Let me know if you need more detail than that. Mathglot (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Mathglot thanks for all this contribution to the article, yes i was planning to fix or even change some citations as some didn't seem very adequate to their respective paragraphs, so i'm planning to do a full checkout of these citations just to make sure everything is well sourced, i also removed some refs that didn't seem very reliable or could be replaced with more recent ones. your suggestions are very much welcome and i will try to apply them here. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, please lmk when you're done. Converting refs to {{sfn}} is great, if you want to do that (certainly makes editing the wikicode a lot easier to deal with afterward) but don't forget to ensure the short footnote still points the full one in the Bibliography section. Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I scrolled down to Further reading, and noticed that you are picking up some of the Further reading items and citing them in the body (there are 38 sources being cited that weren't cited before; Trapper's script tags which ones, otherwise I'd have no idea). When the dust settles, those 38 citations (and any others you pick up) should be moved from Further reading to Bibliography. That's a very easy edit when the time comes, but is very low priority because it doesn't affect Verifiability; just keep it in mind as some housekeeping to be done when you're done with the current series. Mathglot (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, i think i've covered major issues (with your help) regarding citations and refs. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's looking good. I moved the citations from Further reading (about 30 of them) that you added citations to in the body, up to the Bibliography section, and re-alphabetized it. Well done; it's looking really clean, now, and the wikicode is much tighter and easier to deal with. Take a breather! Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again for this valuable contribution, i'm now pretty much done with this article, hopefully it's understanble enough. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
hello Nourerrahmane I thought I would see how you are doing because it's been a while. I see you have been working with Mathglot, which is great. I am therefore going to assume any problems are minor and go do other things on my list, which is rather long, rather than a copy-edit here.
I leave you with a thought for something I could work on when I come back if you want: the tag about the length isn't really anything to worry about. It isn't uncommon for important topics especially a complex one like this. Usually this can be solved by making a separate article out of one of the longer sections, while leaving a summary here. How to do this exactly is a complex calculus and your input would be very desirable. Maybe give it some thought and let me know at your leisure. Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey it’s been a while ! Well just like I explained to a military history reviewer in my own talk page, I believe that this article needs a comprehensive treatment, I think it’s in good shape right now and therefore I wouldn’t mind the tag if users still find it applicable here. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
It's in readable English. It could use a light copy-edit, nothing serious. I found a sentence fragment and a wording strangeness, but I would think there is no more than an hour of work there. I'm just not in the right frame of mind right now.
Most importantly it has the breadth to showcase a really important piece of history. i can't tell you how pleased I am. The French stuff I found was so dismissive
This has the makings of a featured article if you want to try for that. I'd be happy to help you submit it if you want. Next step is Good Article. The .ilhist reviewer had some thoughts probably? Elinruby (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
ah! I see it's already been submitted. Elinruby (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad you find the article informative, hopefully other editors will do too, and i hope it will at least get to GA status, that would be a good start before reaching FA, though i hope this article is accurate, neutral and comprehensive enough. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Campaign of Tlemcen section

please check that the link for Abu Zayan III does in fact go to the.correct article in Arabic. I am clueless and copied what I think is the right text based solely on layout. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It's done, proper link to french articles for both Zayyanid rulers. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem

Was just looking at this edit where we took out melk to see if it was supported in the source, which is Hassan-Bey (2022), and sure enough, it's in the source. But there's a bigger problem, so I'm completing dropping the issue of melk and shifting my attention to a way more important one. Below is the passage from Hassan-Bey (#1), followed by my translation of it (#2), and below that, content pasted here from section § Agriculture of our article (#3):

  1. Hassan-Bey (fr): melk, appartenant à la féodalité locale, représentent la principale richesse du pays : vastes superficies des meilleurs terres de l’Algérie réservées à la monoculture (blé, orge, pacage). Du fait du caractère féodale de ce régime les…
  2. Hassan-Bey (→en): melk, belonging to the local feudal system, represented the country's main wealth: vast areas of the best land in Algeria reserved for monoculture (wheat, barley, grazing). Because of the feudal nature of this system, the...
  3. § Agriculture: Large estates belonging to feudal lords represented the country's main wealth: vast areas of Algeria's best land reserved for monoculture (wheat, barley, grazing). Due to the feudal nature of this regime, the...

I think we will have to go through the whole article and verify content against sources to remove any copyright violations due to direct translation or WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of sources under copyright. I'm not sure how to withdraw a GA nom, but lucky for us review hasn't started yet, and we should withdraw it immediately. Don't underestimate the seriousness of this; the entire article may be blacked out and hidden behind a copyvio template if we don't fix this asap. An alternative would be to roll way back to a previous version that we are sure is compliant. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that is where we are. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Against rollback. Too much work in. Willing to help check against sources. The good thing is, All the reworking I'm doing may help. @Nourerrahmane: consider yourself slapped repeatedly with a wet trout. You should have checked everything when they talked to you about this before. Elinruby (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Fine, but then everybody has to stop everything else they're doing on the article, and concentrate solely on this. This is higher on the policy scale than NPOV or Verifiability; this beats everything but libel and legal threats, and has to be handled asap. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I know. Should I run earwig section by section, or...? i will start source checking at the bottom of the history section moving up, to reduce edit conflicts, how about that? Elinruby (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby @Mathglot Sorry for this. Should have been more vigilent since i wrote this part a while ago. I can assure that this is the only part that's looks paraphrased with the source, and i kinda forgot about it, but the rest has been spared. Though we should check again just in case. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, a B class reviewer told me that this article had no copyvo problems a little while ago. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you ping them here? I seriously doubt an Afc reviewer examined Arabic or French texts to compare them to the article as part of their review, but I might be wrong. As I mentioned earlier, Earwig is generally how users determine copyvio problems, but Earwig is not able to determine copyvios stemming from translated content. Mathglot (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, we have to check it all now. Can you or Mathglot figure out how to put the GA nomination on hold please? I see that is the case for a couple of other articles that are undergoing improvements. Am going to start checking against sources from the bottom up. Mathglot isn't kidding about how seriously they take this. Elinruby (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  • French invasion section: references verified
  • Barbary Wars section: referencing verified, however one only covers part of the sentence in front of it, as far as I can tell. Possibly me as I was having difficulty navigating the ToC. Just in case, moving that reference to what it definitely covers. Other sources say 3000 slaves not 2000, making that change to match the source I am adding.Elinruby (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Spanish expansion in the Maghreb
    • 11.Julien confirmed ok, reworded slightly
    • 12. Devereux need to check the Wikipedia library.
    • 13. Pitcher confirmed ok
    • 14. Al-Madani needs trans-title and quote from Nourerrahmane
    • 15. Braudel either page number is wrong or it's really v.I Elinruby (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
ok good. I just did a big rewording in the agriculture section. It might still need more but I was thinking of talking about irrigation also, which should help as well. Did you see my question about Tuat? Elinruby (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Did few more rewording on that, Thanks! and i don't see your question about Tuat (Which was a highly contested region between Algeria and morocco, to this day it's a sensitive subject) but i'd be glaf to answer. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
That would be good, @M.Bitton suggested something like that but his source didn't include agriculture i beleive, he might help with that. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This was Tuat. I got there from clicking around our discussion about tribes and the central government. There are few sources one I recognized I think, but I was interested in the apparently intricate but now-decayiing irrigation system. Apparently the extensive date palm orchards were a tribal initiative. Is this within a scope for this article, is my question. Elinruby (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Are you referring to the foggara? M.Bitton (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton: yes. @Mathglot and Nourerrahmane: Elinruby (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
About using Earwig: as this is English Wikipedia, you can only benefit from Earwig in cases where the source is in English. It won't help for a non-English source, as Earwig is strictly a string matching engine and thus is unable to check translated content. Mathglot (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
There are books in Arabic, dunno how you're going to assume there is direct translation of the source, and the French sources like Kaddache and Mhamsadji, i have those books, can you access them to do checking ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not assuming anything, but I think we have to check. I don't know if I can check Kaddache or Mhamsadji yet, but if you do, then by adding params |quote= and |quote-page= to the existing references they would be able to be compared with the article. Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
As far as your going bottom up, that's fine, but there are four of us. Elin, you're good at managing collaboration, can you suggest a division of labor here? Afaic, you can just assign me a section, and I'll go check it; unless you or anyone has a better idea of how to avoid duplicate work or overlap while rechecking. Mathglot (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I did run Earwig and it's saying violation unlikely. It shows some scattered hits especially in the Dutch section (sample: "1661 to 1663, the Republic, under the command of Michiel de Ruyter") that aren't really COPYVIO but since we are here, even if it is showing matches like that in Dutch and French, we should do a due diligence check anyway.

I have dealt with this when some machine translation I repaired turned out to have been a copyvio in the first place. Since I was the last person to touch it they held me responsible and yeah, that blanking they do is very hard to deal with. I wound up writing different article from scratch. I think they start to worry at 50% and this is 39. The article I mention above was in the 8Os.

My thought is this: I have the report and will go through the items one by one after I eat. I can probably reduce the score quite a bit more.

As for assignments, if people are willing to take them from me I would say in general we should check the sources as we go and keep notes. Probably in this section. Also:

  • Mathglot, you seemed to have the bit between your teeth in agriculture, and this seems important in terms of economics and governance and causus belli as M.Bitton said.
  • Nourerrahmane maybe you can help with the tribal and irrigation aspects of agriculture? Otherwise I would like you to be available for questions, and to check references in Arabic. The section on Jews seems a bit lightly referenced also, although overall the sources cover what us said there. I have no access to that Wolf reference also, and saying that Jews were at the heart of a war is definitely going to be questioned. I do see that the grain merchants were highly involved, mind, that's not an accusation, just a request for greater specificity.
  • @Scope creep:, I think you should keep doing the reference verification as you were doing but check for paraphrasing also as you go. Also, since you are the one familiar with these reviews, look for problems there, and be fresh eyes in in other sections. We should be able to explain feudalism so that you don't have to look things up to understand it for example. Also, the raids on Britain and Ireland and Iceland are probably of interest to our target audience. Maybe check against Barbary pirates? Jack Sparrow is interesting. I also just remembered that you are working on agriculture also. I dunno, coordinate with Mathglot, you guys know each other. It's a big topic.
  • Mathglot: Maybe, to keep us from losing our minds, you could set up a checklist by section? For instance I am willing to vouch that the Barbary Wars and French invasion sections have no issues but would like to do so with fewer words, see what I mean?
see "Referencing checklist below Elinruby (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Then if we find a problem or need Nourerrahmane to check Boaziz or whatever we post here.

This is going the extra mile but having found one problem we probably should, especially since some aspects such as ::cough:: the discussion of holy war ::cough:: may strike some people as PoV. It would be good for the referencing to be very tight.

  • M Bitton and R.Prazeres, not sure if you are paying attention, but your suggestions have been helpful and if you are interested and would like as subject matter experts (definitely more so than me anyway) to do a review and make further suggestions, they would be welcome.

Tasks up for grabs if anyone wants to do something else for a while:

  • There seems to be some stuff that could be said about the Netherlands and the Hanseatic League
  • Not all images have alt tags
I will add more here as I think of them. Some of the open tasks in earlier threads need followup, and I will bring them down here also.

Comments? hth now I am going for food, back later Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do Agriculture (not today, though). Checking with Earwig is almost not worth the bother; it cannot match an English Wikipedia article with French or Arabic sources, which are the majority here. You can try it, it might find some stuff in English, but is useless for non-English. (But see the § Earwig hack below.) Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I will make sure to save this report. But are you sure about other languages? The sample I noted above is from Dutch I thought. But you're the wiki tech person and probably right. Anyway for anti-islamophobe purposes we should check this and it's probably good to verify the references anyway for the same reason. I don't feel up to the hack this instant but will check it out. Right now I will just keep manually checking, and knock out some of the minor matches in the report that aren't long enough to be COPYVIO but can be reworded. A score of zero isn't attainable or expected (it reported Barbary pirates as an unusual matching wording for example) but the lower the better. Elinruby (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Earwig hack

I said above that you cannot use Earwig very profitably against this article because most of the sourcing is from French or Arabic sources, and because Earwig is just a fancy string-matcher. That is true, but there is a hack available, that might work. The basic idea is that if we want Earwig to detect copying from French sources, say, then we need a French version of our article to compare to. It basically goes like this:

  1. Take a copy of the entire lead and body of the article from the rendered page, *not from the wikicode*, skipping all appendixes, infoboxes, ToC, etc.
  2. Use a text processor to delete all citations, i.e., any numeric, bracketed numbers in superscript.
  3. Run the resulting appendixless, citationless article through machine translation to create a French version.
    • I think DeepL gives the best results, but the free version limits you to a few paragraphs at a time, so you will have to stitch together probably a few dozen translation results to get the full article translated.
  4. Save the resulting French auto-translation as a sandbox.
  5. Fire up Earwig, and point it to the French sandbox version of the article, and report back.

After you're done, do the same thing with Arabic.

One more thing about Earwig: this is a tool that uses a Google API that costs Wikimedia actual dollars, and there is a certain number of slots available per day, based on whatever Google API throughput level they have purchased; more than that, and either they start charging us an overage premium, or Earwig stops working for everybody on the site; not sure which. So it's worth making fewer calls to Earwig about long articles, than many calls to Earwig based on different, chopped up pieces of an article. The point being, that if you try the hack, don't pass Earwig a few paragraphs, and then a few more paragraphs, and then a few more; that eats up Earwig/Google API slots; just pass it as much data as you can, as few times as you can. That said, it's there to help us get our work done, so if you need it, use it. Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we sectionalise it, perhaps list sections we can individually work over the next week, so no duplicating work. Is it the whole article that needs checked? scope_creepTalk 06:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Mathglot asked me that also. My attempt to organize that is the really long post I made further up this section. I know I just pinged you a million times so repeating what I told you there down here. Feel free to reject what I said and pick something else, just try to let us know what it is. @Scope creep:, I think you should keep doing the reference verification as you were doing but check for paraphrasing also as you go. Also, since you are the one familiar with these reviews, look for problems there, and be fresh eyes in in other sections. We should be able to explain feudalism so that you don't have to look things up to understand it for example. Also, the raids on Britain and Ireland and Iceland are probably of interest to our target audience. Maybe check against Barbary pirates? Jack Sparrow is interesting. I also just remembered that you are working on agriculture also. I dunno, coordinate with Mathglot, you guys know each other. It's a big topic. Elinruby (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little slower here than y'all, so forgive me for that; but I've got § Agriculture on my list and I'll get to it, eventually, Mathglot (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Standardization gnoming

  • Dîwan or dîwân or diwân: I see Nourerrahme said this should not be capitalized. I have been capitalizing it because I misread that, but have no problem with doing a find-replace. Let's have a decision on the accents circonflexes though, so I only need to do it once.
  • also changing Istanbul to Constantinople

Similarly I have been doing the following and maybe should consult MoS:

  • "King Francis" but "the French king"
  • "the pasha" but "Ahmed Pasha"
  • italicizing Arabic
  • Italicizing names of books and paintings
  • Overlinking some words like "marabout" that I think English speakers are likely to not recognize

Etc. Will add more as I think of them. Elinruby (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't italicize non-Latin scripts, and in any case, Arabic fonts do not generally have italic (or bold). Mathglot (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I meant words like "melk" (which for all I know isn't Arabic but Berber so lang template doesn't seem like the answer) Elinruby (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I am going with capital c, noting that in case this later requires a find/replace Elinruby (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
lower case "janissaries"? (Copied here from another section)

*Green tickY Janissaries or janissaries?(this never got answered so I unilaterally went with lower case on the theory that it's a description and find/replace is a thing. Collapsing and copying to Find/Replace is a thing. Collapsing this thread and copying to standardization section.) Elinruby (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Green tickY Agreement reached that when used as a title in this article we will use "Reis"
I think I will add at least one of the bios to See also. I think Simon Reis is mentioned in the text already, will check. Elinruby (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
(followup from round bottom ships thread) yes he is mentioned by name with respect to the cannons he gave the Duke of Guise (who is in fact mentioned as governor of Provence at the time, but that's just distracting since he is more important as a military commander and royal advisor so yes, let's keep Provence out of this. Btw I updated the wikilink to point to a specific Duke of Guise). My question about Simon however is that he is mentioned in the article as Zymen Danseker but Nourerrahmane seems to feel it should be Simon Re'is. I agree I think, since this is Ottoman history and he is presumably more likely to be found in those sources under the name he used in Algiers. We won't lose the Dutch name since we link to it, but the article seems to only give European names. Bottom line, changing this name to Simon Re'is in the text unless someone objects.
followup to the followup:why is it Re'is though, and not the Reis we are using elsewhere as a title? If this is just a transliteration problem, totally fine with that but for purposes of this article we need to pick one and use it consistently when we refer to individual pirates Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The corsairs of the Regency always carry the title "Reis" in their names, Oruç Reis, Hamidou Reis, and others listed in the article, this if we want to stick to their Ottoman Barbary corsair affiliation. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I think we should for the reasons above, but should we use Reis or Re'is? I have no opinion and just want to know which way to standardize it Elinruby (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Both are used in RS, Reis would do better for me. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Green tickY Reis it is then for purposes of this article. This is answered as far as I am concerned but will leave uncollapsed for a while in case there is an objection to the part about using pirate names Elinruby (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Green tickY when used as a title in this article we will use "Reis"(copied from "fresh questions")
I think I will add at least one of the bios to See also. I think Simon Reis is mentioned in the text already, will check. Elinruby (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
(followup from round bottom ships thread) yes he is mentioned by name with respect to the cannons he gave the Duke of Guise (who is in fact mentioned as governor of Provence at the time, but that's just distracting since he is more important as a military commander and royal advisor so yes, let's keep Provence out of this. Btw I updated the wikilink to point to a specific Duke of Guise). My question about Simon however is that he is mentioned in the article as Zymen Danseker but Nourerrahmane seems to feel it should be Simon Re'is. I agree I think, since this is Ottoman history and he is presumably more likely to be found in those sources under the name he used in Algiers. We won't lose the Dutch name since we link to it, but the article seems to only give European names. Bottom line, changing this name to Simon Re'is in the text unless someone objects.
followup to the followup:why is it Re'is though, and not the Reis we are using elsewhere as a title? If this is just a transliteration problem, totally fine with that but for purposes of this article we need to pick one and use it consistently when we refer to individual pirates Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The corsairs of the Regency always carry the title "Reis" in their names, Oruç Reis, Hamidou Reis, and others listed in the article, this if we want to stick to their Ottoman Barbary corsair affiliation. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I think we should for the reasons above, but should we use Reis or Re'is? I have no opinion and just want to know which way to standardize it Elinruby (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Both are used in RS, Reis would do better for me. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Green tickY Reis it is then for purposes of this article. This is answered as far as I am concerned but will leave uncollapsed for a while in case there is an objection to the part about using pirate names Elinruby (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Images display on mobile likely bug

apparently a bug with the Minerva or Timeless skin

At the end of the Architecture and Music sections. Captions also go straight across the images and do not appear below them. Let me know if screenshots would.be helpful Elinruby (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not seeing it, either on my mobile device, or on the mobile view sidebar gadget; the images look fine on both. It would be interesting for you to try the gadget, and if that fails in the same way, it might be a script or something you've installed maybe? I'm assuming it will look fine on the gadget, and if that's the case, maybe you could try a screenshot and then either WP:Help desk or WP:VPT. Mathglot (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok. Was coming in here to add that I am also getting this with the images in the middle of the Architecture section. Will check the gadget out but if it's only me and my ancient Android it isn't really a problem. Elinruby (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Not having problems with that one, either. If you have an ancient Android, call a friend with a 2- or 3-year old Android and ask them to look at the page and tell them what you see. If it works for them, you have your answer. Mathglot (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
You're looking on an iPhone Ii take it? Elinruby (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I checked on my 2-year old samsung s23 and its working fine. I'll check on old apple I've got right now. scope_creepTalk 08:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Working fine on that old apple as well. scope_creepTalk 08:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
it must be a skin issue. I am currently on an even older Android that uses a different skin and it looks fine. I will write this up as a big in a while, lower priority than some other problems on the page. Elinruby (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

(Note to self maybe also write up preview not working on Timeless skin Elinruby (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC))

(Copied from wormen's clothing section)for example, why the hell is the assabah image centered? Is that a mobile thing? Also an image of a woman wearing one would be sooo much better.(probably a mobile thing,copying to bug report section) Elinruby (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Kingdom of England section

(Copying off to image issues section) under Foreign Policy: Image seems disproportionately large? By maybe 20%? Elinruby (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Also rec by N for jewelry Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Worth mentioning

A couple of things that are worth mentioning:

  1. Agriculture: the fact that the Regency was an agricultural powerhouse in direct competition with the US for trade within the Mediteranean.[9]
  2. Fashion: the "Algerian cloth", a style that was inspired by the Algerian corsairs and adopted throughout the Ottoman empire.[10] M.Bitton (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
1. Ooooo. Going to try to find a place to put that Elinruby (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
2. I can't do Google Translate on this device but that's interesting and I will probably have questions. Elinruby (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Mathglot note the very nice discussion of agriculture. Also see question below about date orchards in Tuat; M.Bitton also provided a link for irrigation below. Thank you on both counts, sir. I am assuming you two will have met somewhere?
  • Don't see dates in Export list, but N. and I were thinking it's an example of trade.
Translation question follows.
  • sur le dos d'un animal - is this adequately translated as "pack animals"?
  • I suggested féodalité as a descriptor for tribal ties, and Nourerrahmane is going to get back to us on that. But if the tribes of the western oases were vassals, then there is apparently some sort of comparison that can be made.(?) Elinruby (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Tackling tiles

Green tickY (question answered, followup below). mihrab on rugs vs in walls, tile discussion. Images here may be useful

There will be multiple questions.

  1. their flat and recessed parts is this talking about the tiles?

Checked# thickness of doors is this we what is labelled a door jamb in the image here? Or are these arches maybe like this?

  1. Mihrab is the niche you are talking about? Also in the crafts section, this word is used for the central medallion of a rug. Maybe there should be an apostrophe in that one?

Checked*stair pillar possibly baluster? Elinruby (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming these from context, as they're all surfaces where tiling can be used: "thickness of doors" I assume refers to jambs; "stair pillar" is probably baluster or balustrade, yes. I'm not sure about "flat and recessed parts", so Nourerrahmane can clarify as needed; but I would guess simply referring to walls/floors in general (which often have recesses or lowered sections)? Tiles are widely used for a variety of surfaces in North Africa, so we can safely use a more general wording, if that helps to resolve any uncertainty about specific words.
I see "mihrab" is currently only used in the context of carpets in the article, which follows the wording by Golvin (cited author). Usually, in this context, it would refer to the "mihrab"-like shape or motif used in many carpets, especially prayer rugs. It looks like a kind of arch (e.g. [11], [12], [13]). I'm not 100% sure if that's what Golvin meant, but in any case it's not quite the same as the term "medallion" in general and most readers would know the word as an architectural feature (mihrab), so it might be best to remove "mihrab" here to avoid confusion; "medallion" should be clear enough. R Prazeres (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thanks, that helps quite a bit Elinruby (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Problems for a future time

Not done yet: collapsing to reduce scroll

I linked Dar al Sultan but on checking the link discovered that the article is on a palace in Tlemcen so I unlinked it. Not sure if we need an article and a dab page, or there's a spelling slash transliteration error or what.

In other news I was talking about Jenina palace elsewhere and someone sent me a few links. I can probably get at least a stub up about it, but one thing at a time. Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Dar al-Sultan (House of the Sultan) was a name or term used in various other contexts/locations. It's merely Wikipedia chance that the only one turned into an article so far is the one in Tlemcen. To be honest, since that particular structure in Tlemcen is merely an annex of the Sidi Boumediene Mosque complex, it should probably be merged into the latter as a long-term solution (following the example of most mosque complexes, e.g. Süleymaniye Mosque, Al-Azhar Mosque, Mouassine Mosque, etc). That complex is one of the topics I'd like to work on in the future (one day...).
As for the Jenina Palace, it's the most important part of the Dar al-Sultan in Algiers, most of which is destroyed except for Dar Aziza, so we are limited in our information about it (which seems to mostly come from textual sources). If a new article is desired, it would probably make sense to make one for Dar al-Sultan, Algiers as a whole, so it can cover all available information about the palace complex, where available. There's some more info about it at Architecture of Algeria#Palace and domestic architecture. R Prazeres (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Nod. It could be a section of that. It's mentioned several times in this article is why I am talking about it. Leaving unlinked for now Elinruby (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
moving this here for consideration from my talk page: "The Djenina spelling led to an image on Commons, which we are using at Regency of Algiers, and to fr:Palais de la Jénina, which has an Arabic version of similar length. I find a number of mentions in books, a few sentences each; Google is mostly showing me writing from an aesthetic point of view, deploring the mistreatment of the building including the "bourgeois" colonial structures surrounding it, but that may be a response to my past reading interests. It was badly damaged in the 1716 earthquake; that ref also indicates there may be sources for Dar al Sultan. And that makes me wonder about Commons:Category:Dey Palace in Algiers. Have at it :-) ...Our Palace of the Dey article appears correct in stating that that was the successor palace, so someone should probably group the couple of images of Jenina Palace in their own Commons subcategory. I found the new URL for El Watan and note multiple usable articles on the restoration projects, but nothing indexed on the lost palace. You're welcome; this has been a lot more fun than checking AN for new brickbats. Now off to use the last daylight."
  • On fr-wiki Djebel Amour is a region. and a people. On en-wiki it is Amour Range, about mountains

raïs reis re'is etc

  • You have this "raïs" in the "Ottoman suzerainty weakens" section but there is a Rais article. Is there any reason its incorrectly linked?Rais is used quite heavily in the article and its needs a definition. Perhaps reword the sentence to include both links. scope_creepTalk 09:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I will take another look at it later today or tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 09:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: for the question about "raïs", which I gather has some important nuances based on the talk page at Corsairs of Algiers. Also, who told you there were too many images, a GA review? If so we should address that, and Scope creep has one specific suggestion anyway. Scope, thanks for your willingness to be fresh eyes. I will be addressing each of these points once I finish up the copyedit/wikilinking in the history section. Also cutting some French mouth noises (repetition of "thus" for example) in view of the length complaint. It probably won't be enough, it but should help. For the moment I am leaving fine details alone. I think it improves the article to (for example) not just say that somebody wasn't just killed, but strangled. That makes it...personal Elinruby (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The definitions seems to be have been removed (that bad link) in that paragraph and now mentioned in next paragraph to described in the name of the next section as "Ali Bitchin Raïs". So the definition needs to go back in. Regarding images, you can have awful lots of images in the article, as long as they are structured. I mentioned the multiple image template as I've seen it used to store dozens of image in several big article and there is no problem. They need to structured properly, so the text is clearly available to the reader. The text on WP has alway been the the most important bit unfortunately at the expense of properly imaged articles. When you looked at "Encarta" the imaging were done by proper UX engineers and it was like proper printed encyclopeadia, not the shadow we have here. scope_creepTalk 08:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
knock yourself out on the images as far as I am concerned. There is something about Raïs the title vs taïfa de raïs vs "the raïs" that i am not sure I understand though, and since it's governance and the people, which.is apparently a sensitive topic because the French pissed all over it, I am going to hope subject matter experts @NourerrahmaneiM.Bitton: don't mund being pinged on this also.
Don't be afraid to make them explain it to you slow, or to explain Scotland to them also if you need to. (Did I ever tell you my father was a Scottish nationalist?) Both Mathglot and I went through some Algerian history articles before, so you are our test English-speaking reader. Specifying this because the fact that I am no fan of colonizers, French, English or other has come up in conversation. Elinruby (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane and M.Bitton: Elinruby (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have taken note of the rais issue and i'm going to work on it, basically Rais means Corsairs captain and tai'fa is the corsair captains community or institution, headed by the Kapudan rais who was the third most important minister in the Dey's cabinet, also known as wakil al kharaj. "The Reis" usually refers to the plural of a signle reis. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby what's the issue with this section ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

deep breath. Ok, I at least am trying to standardize spelling. So as best I can tell we agreed that it should be (for example) Simon Reis not Simon re'is or Re'is, right? I have also been changing Raïs Simon to Simon Re'is. Assuming that's what want to do with the personal title, are we correct to be using tai'fa de raïs? And what is the difference between the corso and the raïs, and should either or both of those words be capitalized? Elinruby (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for this :) so yes Reis and Re'is means corsair captain, that's tied to their name as a personal title. just like Hamidou Re'is, it should be capitalized in this case. Both Reis and Re'is are ok, per sources.
tai'fa of raïs means Community or Corporation of the corsair captains, the "tai'fa" in arabic means a "distinct group", and i don't think it should be capitalized per sources. as the word "raïs" in this case is in the plural form.
The corso means privateering, in some sources we also find the word "Corsairing", so the Re'is (single) or the raïs (plural) are engaged in the corso or privateering. Western sources often use corso and piracy again interchangibly. Since this is still about seamen engaged in carrying attacks against merchant ships, seazing them and taking the crews as slaves, added to that the fact that many authors, especially French considered Algiers to be a rogue piratical state that should not have right to the law of nations back then, which means an enemy to humanity, despite the objection of many contemporary authors who affirm that Algiers and other barbary states are indeed eligible to the rights of independent states as they constitue effective governments with delimited borders and disctinct population. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that answers me for now, although I have another post about "legitimate" elsewhere on the page. I think most of the target audience is unaware that there is any argument that they would not be legitimate, and if you want to refute the claims of French historiographers, you should name them and quote them. Otherwise you are just an old man yelling at a cloud. But we can come back to that. For now what was holding me up was the spelling and capitalization. @Scope creep: to see if that answers his question about this Elinruby (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane:@Elinruby: There is still no definition for it. Its mentioned 4 times near the top of the article, e.g. Oruç Raïs, but only mentioned as a word in the Kingdom of France section, near the middle. It need a definition, i.e. back to the Raïs article or a note put in to explain what is and link to the Raïs article. scope_creepTalk 15:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok so somewhere else on the page N and I discussed that Corsair captains are written as "Simon Reis. He said either "re'is" or "Reis" is correct and I have been changing this to Reis when I see it. However he has just added some text defining raïs as "the people" I think. And I have a question about where Trik is introduced as an "old rais", which I take to mean a very capable seaman?

Green tickY one editor having power and internet outages, lived to tell the tale
More later. Well maybe not, power just now went out as I was typing. I'll keep going while I have a battery tho. It isn't snowing here (yet anyway); I am in a canyon. But avalanches and rock slides take out infrastructure in the spring.
(later: yeah I had a battery, but the router did not... Lol)Elinruby (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
That was fun--power went out when I was typing and it took a bit before the isp was back on. Here's what I was saying:
Once power comes back, can you please help with the long quote in the end (Legacy), i wanted to add it to the notes but i can't find a way to make it visible. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Power is still in and out, but what do you mean by visible? If it becomes a note it will only be readable in the Notes section Elinruby (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
ok so now the roads arej shut down and there's hundreds of people trying to contact home on the local ISP, which is on its backup system, so the page load times are in the five-minute range... I have been at least once all the way the history system. I may get some of this other stuff started tonight once everybody realizes that all the hotels are fifty miles back the other way. We'll see. Elinruby (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
also in the Agriculture section:Marmol, Haedo, and Rotalier all left with a very strong impression of a very rich country so far unable to identify Marmol; do we have him in sources? Haëdo I have wikilinked at least once, but possibly not the first time he appears, need to check. He is in the article several times bit I think there are some inconsistencies, maybe a "de". Also, I don't recall seeing Rotalier. This is more of a note to myself than anything; since the connection is so flaky I probably will skip around. Elinruby (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Green tickY lede rewrite discussion, resolved

(Might be out of order, some posts moved here frpm elsewhere) A couple of points, not to say you are wrong, but part of what I was thinking:

  • You will lose at least some people at "eyalet". Do you feel strongly about that word?
  • Many people will have read something about Barbarossa in the pirate period of their childhood, vaguely remember that and keep reading.
  • I think it is currently in chronological order? Maybe something like "was an autonomous territory of the Ottoman empire founded in (date) by (stuff about brothers) on the Barbary Coast?" Just thinking out loud.
The stuff about jihad and strength is harder, will come back to that. Oruç being a captive of the knights of Malta seems pretty material, and likely should be included.
By the way, the second paragraph about the borders Elinruby (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I supported the word eyalet with "tributary state of the Ottoman Empire" next to it, people will understand it's a dependency of the Ottoman Empire and yes i feel strongly about that word becuase it reflects both the historical name and the affliation of early modern Algeria to the Ottoman Empire. it's vital that people understand that from the get go.
don't think we should include anything about the barbarossas besides their career in Algeria, the article is already long, and people will just have to go to Barbarossa's article if they want more background.
It is in a chronological order, the lead is reflecting the short description, and the whole article in fact reflects it: "Autonomous Ottoman State". Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
transferred short description of the barbarossas to where they first appear in the body of the article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby in my opinion, the first thing that readers should find in the lead is the fact that the regency is an autonomous eyalet of the Ottoman Empire in North Africa , then comes the explanation of that (early modern tributary state…etc) its vital that readers understand that the article is about the Ottoman period of Algeria first and foremost. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Reordered 1st paragraph of lede; what do people think? I have questions.
Green tickY not answered but since seen in body, reference verified and everything, so yes it's a thing
  • the strongest Barbary state -- maybe I just need to read Barbary Coast but I guess we are saying stronger than Tunisia or Morocco? Is this controversial? I seem to recall Algiers conquering them a few times so it's arguable, but it's in wikivoice uncited in the lede.

holy war 2

- there are a couple of sources that explicitly say this. It’s important because it shows that the regency played the most important role in North African and Mediterranean politics.
- holy war because the barbarossas viewed the war against Spain more in a way of Christian aggression against Islamic lands, Oruç was even a prisoner of the knights of Malta before he became a Corsair… so he carried out a military-religious struggle, his power was invested by the marabouts or the religious leaders of Algeria…since Spain was the main catholic power that threatened the Maghreb. This was important for military recruitment and legitimacy within the population that still viewed the ottomans as leaders of a jihadi state and the main Islamic power. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok. I see these answers and you make some good points. Thinking about how to better bring that out then.
Green tickY one editor having markup problems, resolved
Internet seems back to normal and power is staying on. I'll be happy to help with the quote but I don't understand what you mean by "visible". If you want it to show in the article text maybe block quote is what you are looking for? Elinruby (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This edit: [14] i couldn’t make William Spencer quote appear in the notes section like other quotes there. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Try changing the }} at the very end to }}}}. It looks to me like you closed the reference nested within the note but not the note itself. If that doesn't work I'll take a deeper look tomorrow. It's getting late and I should confine myself to simple edits just now, like the alt tags Scope is talking about or small text changes around the edges. Elinruby (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Other images are possible

you were talking about sets of three, Scope creep? Give me a topic?Elinruby (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

With the aim of getting images closer to their para:
  • The "Ottoman suzerainty weakens" section to "Kingdom of France"

Its too crowded and more spacing. See how it looks if we put more in. scope_creepTalk 07:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Sublime Porte
Magnificent
Bastion
Topaki Palace
These images are at least somewhat related to things mentioned in Ottoman suzerainty weakens. Not sure about
sulemein (sp?) Elinruby (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hapsburg Europe

Ottoman Sultan images

Haseki Huerrem.jpg Sultan Roxelane.jpg

  • Mehmet IV
    Mehmet IV
  • Murad IV
    Murad IV
  • Mehmed
    Mehmed
  • Murad III
    Murad III

Category:Ottoman people of the Great Turkish War

Sorry for all the pings: update

Ok so if a thread above is open and I didn't ping you on it, it may simply be that I want to look at something. Threads that are collapsed either are done or need one simple thing. If I pinged you on something I think it needs you. I moved some posts to put threads together and changed some indents but I don't think I edited anyone else's posts. Feel free to read/disagree with any of what I did there, but I was asked to provide some direction and that was me trying to do that. I am going to keep adding new questions to "fresh questions".

Lesson learned: article is too complex for three-part questions. will stop that. Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

|}

Algerian Jews

Hey Elin, can you please check the recently added content and RS ? that would support some arab and french sources with a strong english material. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I will, I promise. You guys did a lot of work last night Elinruby (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Thaught you searched for this source: [15] Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
yes. I changed the link in the Bibliography to that from Google Books, which has no preview and no snippet view, thanks Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
That Keddache citation is pretty old, way before i started editing here, since i don't use 1998's book but 2003 one. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Nod just saying this has to be addressed.will see if there is also an Internet Archive link for him. On the bright side, the 500 looms are verified. Meanwhile Ruedy had a snippet view, but is also at the internet Archive so why struggle with that, switched that url also.Elinruby (talk) 13:22, precum 12 March 2024 (UTC)
No such luck for either Kaddache or Hassan-Bey. Have not yet checked the Wikipedia library Elinruby (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
You wanted more sources on the Jewish merchants section if i remember right ? well you got 3 sources there, Kaddache, Wold and Panzac. Still need more ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hmm? i have been looking at the source about the cannon. If you have one handy at the tip of your tongue, sure. If not and you would have to look or think about it, no worries. I'll get back to you when I have a question. By the way, I do see that those grain mechants were pretty central. I did not quite see "at the heart of" and I am not sure if that is talking about their influence at court or the anger at the export contracts being fulfilled when there was a famine. But I haven't looked at Wolf yet and it looks like that is a primary source. Elinruby (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
er, when I say primary I mean important, not the Wikipedia meaning of primary source. I was just looking at the history Nourerrahmane; you and Scope creep have done a lot of work! Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Flag image

I think we will still need a image of Heyreddin. scope_creepTalk 21:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That Hapsburg Europe image is well within the time period and is wild. Images on the article are looking great. The sizing is really is right, apart from one bit. scope_creepTalk 21:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Scope creep reference validation

Green tickY ref 150 fixed
  • Ref 150. Ref 150. The three ships were captured before the war started in 1770. The three ships being captured happened sometime between 1766-1770 after the Danish refused to up the tribute. That was likely the reason I couldn't find a reference for it yesterday. That section will need revisted. scope_creepTalk 08:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
    Used boaziz as a source, which says that the Danes bombarded Algiers first, then the corsairs started hunting Danish ships for a year before peace was concluded, if there is another viable source that'll be welcome. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


Green tickY moved to further reading
  • Trono, Anna; Arthur, Paul; Servantie, Alain; Sánchez García, Encarnación, eds. (31 December 2021). A New World: Emperor Charles V and the Beginnings of Globalisation. tab edizioni. ISBN 978-88-9295-368-0.
I've added it to further reading. scope_creepTalk 09:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Scope creep Ok good, just trying for clarity. I am still in the bottom sections so we shouldn't have any edit conflicts. Just getting in here. Going to close or consolidate some more threads, trying to see what is still open Elinruby (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


Green tickY seems resolved unless someone thinks otherwise

I don't think the Wikiwix archive is used on en Wikipedia? Its predominatly an fr Wikipedia archive. Would that be true? I seen two references to it. scope_creepTalk 18:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

i wondered about that. Unsure. I have seen it before but don't remember an outcome.Elinruby (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Spoke to the help desk, it is used all the time on en Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 05:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


Green tickY First Mercier ref fixed

Can we swap out the site reference for the Gallica link at [16] which is the third volume? That [17] url seems to be an empty site and is probably unsuitable as ref? scope_creepTalk 06:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: Did you see this? scope_creepTalk 08:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, sorry i was at work. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll just finish some work in the article and i'll get back to this if you don't mind. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I added more RS and few content, please check them out when you have time. Thanks! Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Of course, though i have Mercier as a PDF so i don't remember how that url went there in the first place. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane: I'm just back in now. scope_creepTalk 19:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I've swapped out url for a Gallica archive link. scope_creepTalk 16:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
stale update

Turkish influence on culture

  • Algerian culture isn't complete without this turkish influence, as Spencer says, the turkish influence mixed with moorish and andalusi elements is what gives clear and seperate shape for the Algerian culture. Turkish influance in Algeria is an aspect of Algerian culture just like not all North African berber or arabic culture is part of Algerian culture. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
done
  • Sarma for instance seems to be Ottoman but nothing in the article about Algeria. Trying to close out the windows with edit conflicts, then will look at the Legacy section for you.~``~ Elinruby (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you list what you want to change in the section ? also expanded the legacy section, please tell me what do you think about it and if it's neutral enough. Nourerrahmane (talk

11:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Turkish influence
Sure. But it isn't very useful to say mosques meh pretty much like Turkey. Though I'm not proposing to get into how many pillars each one had either. Needs work is all, needs work. Ann yes, we got to try to focus on the ottoman period. I think one of these dresses is late 19th century; not so much interested in that. Jew Jewish traders in the Oases is interesting for example Elinruby (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I will and I will. Going to work on this in my sandbox for a while, keep getting edit conflicts. Basically want to get let generic and more culturally specific in the jewelry and copper ware sections especially. Elinruby (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Elin, right now i'm checking for any possible paraphrasing, and sometimes adding material for more clarification, i'll sure search for sources about jewelry in Ottoman Algeria, Hassan bey for a start ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

yeah other sources would be good. That didn't come up in google searches. Will check that out. And if you're checking crafts, it's better than it was but it's still not good. I managed to pull together some original writing in the rug section from the same source, but you should reality check that. He does say all that on the same page but on different paragraphs. It will fly. In copper ware I just rearranged the words. And I read what you said about the Boaziz tho I can't find the comment right now that makes sense that they were anti tax not anti war, I was wondering i when that changed.Elinruby (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Legacy section

So when you say more neutral, my question is more neutral than what? That Wolf quote is extremely ethnocentric. Is that outdated? Because that's pretty much an apology for colonialism right there. I don't remember that being there before. More in a minute, have to double check something. speaking of which, in "three quarters from Europe" isn't there a word or two missing there? BrbElinruby (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty much why i added it, it represents the french point of view, but his books is still an RS and was translated to arabic by famous Algerian historian Abu al qasim Sadallah [18], who neverthenless made a lot of critiques in the translated version to the point of renaming it "Algeria and Europe". Wolf went to describe Algiers as a republic of cutthrotes and theives. Sadallah thaught that this book was more of a European/ Western liberal view of Algiers, but he also stated that John Wolf himself argued that he didn't have access to Algerian and turkish sources. But his work still gives a lot of important informations about events in this period. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
My point was to make two contradicting POVs in this section. much like Pirates and privateers. Heroes for some people, bad guys for others. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes it is. I can confirm that. Nourerrahmane (talk)

13:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Well they were still using the word barbare within my memory so maybe you are right. Be careful of not looking like you are having a straw man argument though. But I my self was warning you about Islamophobes, so...

Scope creep re Wolf that you asked me about. Probably ok were you used it though.Elinruby (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Wolf seems to be pretty decent. scope_creepTalk 21:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Definitely ok for the slave rescue incident where I told you i didn't see why it wouldn't be fine. N says it's RS and a standard text in the historiography, even. I forget what the quote was exactly that set me off here, but it had more than a whiff of colonizers doing the barbarians a favor by bringing them civilization. That is nowhere near unique to either Algeria or the French; see the treatment of the Senegalese tirailleurs or the Canadian Indian residential school system, King Leopold's Ghost, pretty much everything about the [[British Raj], the Atlantic slave trade and the conquistadors. But if that's what tbe French historiography of Algeria still looks like it is probably WP:DUE to bring up decolonization.(see discussions under "holy war"). But let's get all the way through the rest of the article text before we try to weigh this. @Scope creep and Nourerrahmane: PS

Nourerrahmane there are probably more than two points of view btw. Elinruby (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Nod is it still representative of French historiography though is my question. But yeah I have to say pirates are.probably much of the image, and maybe we should be more careful in this article to use privateer. I still have that thread open because I was meaning to come back to that. Now "political anarchy, a fearsome enemy that captivated European imaginations" is not neutral, and better be close to the source, but is kind of long to be a paraphrase not in quotes. looking at the article again...

same thing goes for the part about kidnapping christian. The language is a little shocking. "truly national entity" needs work. Identity? The rest of the article isn't objectionable and seems reasonable at the superficial level where I am currently able to operate. Ask me again when I have had some sleep. English note however: "consider as" is all over Wikipedia. I am not sure why. It's wrong though. I consider Wolf a dinosaur. That's the idiom in English. Elinruby (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

key point: anything shocking should be carefully attributed.


a couple of off-,topic things: why did you take out the third image in the music section,? I liked it a lot. second thing, it'a shame that we don't seem to know who those people are in that couple photo. I have to go now, fading fast. I took the adsabsh image out for now. It did really ugly things to the mobile layout. Elinruby (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I moved it to the Urban population section, maybe you can gnome it ? or take it back to its former place if you see this better fit ?
Probably nobles in the late 19th century Algeria. Have a good night Elin. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I got sucked into some side drama. Oh the image? Cool. will check it out. Really gotta go right now, my eyes are crossing. Elinruby (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by gnome
specifically; I did the upright thing. Not sure if I tried to scale down; if it looks bad on this phone I will go back to just upright by itself Elinruby (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


[19] Elinruby (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

[20] discusses historiography and touches on the uropean perceptions thing i was talking about Elinruby (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Zooming out

I need a break from microscopic referencing inspection. I dreamed about this article again last night.

  • Going to try to wrap up some talk page threads. This may involve some refactoring, since all of us have been commenting in whatever thread we happen to have open. It is unusual to curate a talk page this much, and I generally never do it at all, so please feel free to object to anything I do. The idea is to put answers with their questions and close those threads if they are done.
  • Also for readability and scroll I will drop in some subheaders.
  • I have added some images directly to the article. I may add more. Please feel free to remove any that you do not like, especially if they are somehow wrong there, but let me know why, please.


@Elinruby:@Nourerrahmane: Could that big "Theodore Leblanc - Algerian Interior c1835". I know its outside period of empire, at 1877 or summat, but the gilt frames on the portrait, show the wealth of the place after 200-300 years of piracy and wars. It could be a "final how people lived at the end", "concept of living with wealth". Something like that. It is a great image, but not sure how to fit it. scope_creepTalk 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Nice picture of a moorish house interior, I’ll work on it and your new suggestions in the checklist by tomorrow morning GMT +1. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes some people became immensely wealthy. zEven slaves. What doesn't get used here I will copy to Talk:Culture of Algeria but a better suggestion would be welcome Elinruby (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think some of these might be significant because of the names in involved. And I don't think it matters so much that it was produced after 1830 as that it be a fair depiction. For architecture of course when it was built is everything, but not necessarily so on music or art. Elinruby (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Scope creep, I am going to look at some of the stuff you flagged as "can this be reworded" then cross out what I think is done, at which point you can re-check if you want. Then I guess we'll have N. do a reality check on the entire checklist once we think we are done with it? Meanwhile though he has a long list of language questions. Does that work for everyone?
Yes. I plan to check everything that Nourerrahmane has done to update the sections on the checklist that i've looked at. I've looked at some of the updates that Nourerrahmane did and they're decent. I plan to carry doing that section today and making a start on 1.2. scope_creepTalk 10:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
A quick scan if you've approved it, for spelling. scope_creepTalk 20:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Culture section is getting re-written from mostly scratch.
  • We haven't specifically discussed mosques under architecture but apparently the shape of the minaret is distinctly Algerian and there was something about domes?

@Nourerrahmane: is the images of the mosque I added ok? It was built in the period. But I know there is something about minarets and domes, so asking you if we adequately covered mosques in the Architecture section. Actually, maybe that picture should go where it says he built it. In any event, mosque images, I am thinking two? It's a short section. Opinion? Also, I moved some images, what do you think? Elinruby (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


I noticed when this was mentioned, it states somewhere that something was "given" to Charles V. You don't give something to a King. You gift it, in a elaborate ceremony. It needs reworded. Say something like "It was presented" scope_creepTalk 10:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
That could have come up in several places, but I will keep my eye out for it. We have a whole section on tribute ceremony so this makes sense.Elinruby (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Algerian expansion section: Slaves sold for an onion? First reference is not in preview, second is snippet and "onion" isn't bringing up anything useful. Elinruby (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Elin, tough ketchawa is an iconic mosque in Ottoman Algeria, the current look of it is inspired on a French tranformation and conversion to a Cathedral, so that's not how the mosque looked like in the Ottoman period. That's why an inside look of the dome and a link to the article of the mosque is enough in my opinion. The moved images are fine in my opinion except that picture of Barbarossa which actually shows Oruç and not Hayreddin. I have no opinions if we should have a little section about mosques. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The slave market of Algiers was filled with 4,000 prisoners, where it was said that Christians were sold to an onion per head.[74][71] Elinruby (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Brought this up as it was cited in many sources. Removed it since it's useless Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Removed the two images in the Tunisian campaigns section, as they depict the Spanish capture of Tunis in 1535 and therefore not related with Algerian Tunisian conflicts in late 17th-18th century. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
well the onion thing might be interesting. It either means that onions were expensive or slaves were cheap. Which I guess is the point. So it's really saying the price of a slave was one onion?
On images ok. That is a good reason. Elinruby (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
It means slaves were really cheap because many of Charles soldiers were captured after the battle. it's now a proverb in Algeria when people speak about a despicable man, saying: "He's not worth the price of single onion head". Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
so that is interesting. Literally and onion? I think you should leave it in. If it just means dirt cheap I can tweak it? Elinruby (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah an onion lol in Algiers we say « mayeswash ras Basla » means he’s cheaper than a single onion, of course you can tweak it Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
On images, got few more comments:
- Philip IV is not really talked about in the section, i don't think his image deserves to be there, I also suggest replacing the image of the French king with an image representing the Franco Algerian war
Can go if passing. scope_creepTalk 20:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
erm what's that you say? I don't care about the Philip image if someone wants to remove it. Does that help? Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
If he is not directly mention in the paragraph and not part of some large action, i.e. battle or something like that over a period, then remove. If he's involved in passing i.e. a small interaction, then remove. scope_creepTalk 07:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
yeah he's only mentioned in that section in the caption for the map. The two portraits are of the two kings mentioned on the balance of power map, that was the thinking. But it's just a suggestion and either of you can remove either of those portraits if you want. The ones I added directed are of people mentioned in the section, but sometimes as with the Italian countess below a nice portrait doesn't mean she is important, and that story is actually rather involved if we were to tell it. Maybe if anybody ever dies an article about captivity narratives. Elinruby (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Speaking of Women riot in Algiers, i haven't met any source that speaks about such riot, also women didn't have that early modern western outfit in Algeria. The image speaks about the French bombardement in Algiers, so nothing to do with Algerian relations with England
- The moulouya river image looks nice, but i beleive in this context readers will be more intrested to know where it is located at, an ancient map for that would be better in my opnion, especially that Algerian moroccan conflicts in this period were about borders, and the Moulouya served often as natural border between the two states.
- Gonzaga is a side character in this section, it falls in the context of Barbarossa's raids, i guess a link to it should be enough, as to avoid MOS:SANDWISH Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Section updates

I intend to start checking 2.1.1 to 2.3.2 which I'm assuming has not been done. I plan to check the work of latter sections 3,4,5,6 over the remains of the week. I noticed there is an image overlap again at "Tribal aristocracy". There is also a problem with that table. Can the "French slave in Algiers" image be moved up a bit or put into that block above. So that how the slaves were chained. They had to carry a chain with them all the time. The dude was a tailor as well. So will start that today. It might be worth sending that map image to the Graphics Lab to see if then brighten it a bit, or do something with it. I'll do that when I get back. scope_creepTalk 07:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

which map? Elinruby (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC) NM I see it. It was one of the edits I did the other day. I uploaded it. If you already have a request in to the Graphics Lab and they do better then yay. I am still limited to my phone for the moment. Elinruby (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Morning @Elinruby: Not yet but will do when I come back. They might be able to brighten it a wee bit. scope_creepTalk 06:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey scope, do you think that the article is of any interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Piracy ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Nourerrahmane: I would say so. Piracy was the main economic driver for the city and the region for a couple hundred years. scope_creepTalk 13:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Alright, added High importance scale for that Wikiproject, per Barbary pirates (Top importance), French Wiki (Régence d'Alger), and context. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I am still in the throes of RL but might finally be done tomorrow. May get some stuff today though I am pretty wiped out from the latest big trip into town to see a specialist yesterday. (Routine but important) If so, I will either solve problems I noted or start at the bottom of the history section and work up. And +1 on the article being of interest to the pirate projects. Apart from possibly some small scattered communities the Barbary coast would be the most prominent example of a pirate economy, no? So I agree that it's top importance. Elinruby (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I uploaded the one I did meanwhile. But I could do better with GIMP and I am only a journeyman user. Do you have an opinion on the test edits I uploaded? I am just glancing in the door, not really here. Waiting for something and liable to disappear at any moment. This should be over soon. If I get the chance I'll see if I can finish the documenting the Tunisian campaign section. Elinruby (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Did some additions in the Tunisian section, hopefully they are informative, and i don't really have an opinion on the test edits, are they supposed to make an image look better ? also, i added a big map of the barbary coast, do you think it fits there ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Elinruby one of my two last edits seem to have undid your edit, could you please check this out ? sorry :) Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to start on 2.1 tommorrow, quick run through. scope_creepTalk 01:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Stuff going on can't right now. Today's edit was just a copy edit, no big deal. Will look when I can. But no worries. Elinruby (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Lithographs of Algeria in 1830s

Hi all, in case this is useful here or in other articles at some point, I found this French publication (Lessore et Wyld, 1835, Voyage pittoresque dans la régence d'Alger, pendant l'année 1833) which contains around 50 lithographs of Algeria made in 1833, barely a few years after the French invasion, thus fairly close to the Regency period. As far as I can tell, most of these images are not currently in Commons, but they would be in the public domain. The plates (images) are accompanied by descriptive texts (though I can't vouch for their accuracy) located in the first 20 pages of the book, matched by number. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow thanks for this beautiful find ! Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually the book was translated into arabic, here it is: [21] Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thank you very much! Elinruby (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regency_of_Algiers/Archive_2&oldid=1222437847"