Jump to content

Talk:History of the Regency of Algiers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Draft[edit]

@R Prazeres It's mostly copy past with small additions. I guess we now need a summary for the main article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. I suppose we should confirm that the others do indeed want to do this, but I imagine they will. R Prazeres (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused refs[edit]

@Nourerrahmane: @R Prazeres: I've taken out all the unused refs and put them in a fr section for completeness and neatness until we are ready either to use or get rid of the whole fr sections on both article. May need one or two but there is a lot. scope_creepTalk 07:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused refs, used in main article[edit]

Multitarget[edit]

Hey @Elinruby, it's here, there are actually two volumes of Seybold ref, can't figure out how to cite them seperately. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that might be more of a Scope creep question since I have less experience that he does with MoS and templates. But I will look inot it if it's still there when I come back. Elinruby (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it though didn't we have this problem with De Grammont or one of the other older French sources? Regardless, gotta go, will look into this when I come back if it's still here when I check on it. Elinruby (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nourerrahmane: I can fix that. But the ones in the history article that are above page 545 must be other volumes, so they are not Seybold. Seybold is only good for p. 258. If you can give me the volume numbers for that page, for the history article, then I can create the references and cite them. Page 258 is Seybold. I'll check what p.471 author is. The author name is the end of the article, but the volume number needs to be in there, so it can be found. scope_creepTalk 20:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
refs: 180, 230 and 235 are Vol 2 Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(still not really back) I am assuming this is getting fixed unless somebody pings me about it Elinruby (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinruby: I'm doing it now. scope_creepTalk 21:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nourerrahmane: Is ref 180 correct p.854 vol 2. Is on the China-Cift page and can't verify. Doing the other two. scope_creepTalk 21:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed citation to Holt in 180. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coolio. So I can tick that as finished. scope_creepTalk 22:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

old ref[edit]

war with Spain section[edit]

Mohamed ben Othman is a redlink and I know he has an article, need to fix redlink Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY he had a previous mention and Nour unlinked the second one that was spelled differently. Solved the redlink, maybe should standardize name Elinruby (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New masters of Algiers[edit]

sort of a disconnect here; The Spanish landed, so how does the north wind come into this? I haven't looked at the main article yet, and am sure that this has to do with the ships they were retreating to. But someone who hasn't spent months on this article might wonder, and just a few words would probably be enough to resolve this. I will come back to it, but noting here as a reminder to self, and if it gets fixed before I get to it then great. Elinruby (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it's clearer after my last update. Also replaced the unsourced phrase you removed with more context. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the Leo Africanus quote. That is probably good. I have to be on another device to verify the reference but I am going to find out that the quote is in the source word for word, right? Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Also just saw the part about ships getting washed onto the coast, and that takes care of the above concern. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know I keep asking this[edit]

Morocco opposed the Ottomans with determination, and saw Algiers as a danger to its independence. It also had ancient ambitions in western Algeria and especially in Tlemcen.[1]

but does Boaziz cover both those sentences? If so could we please put a cite at the end of the first one.? Please. It strikes me as very crystal ball and synthy, as in we should not say this but we can indeed quote Boaziz saying this if he does.

I wrote the quote.<--Nour is this you? If so, okay, is there a source that says pretty much this? Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, how much do we lose if we just take it out? I personally think it could well be true and should be easy to source, but it *is* synth unless it's sourced.Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY I believe this now has the same cite at the end of both sentences, thank you for that. Elinruby (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Boaziz 2007, p. 51.

Need guidance on tai'fa[edit]

Should the mention in the lede link to taifa? I hadn't noticed that article until now Elinruby (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just noting that when it came up deep in the administration section I did link it as an explanation of the type of organization. I just think tai'fa is not exactly the same thing as in the taifa article. Or is it? Translator hesitated here, in any event. Elinruby (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Ali Bitchin Rais" section the term is linked to Corsairs of Algiers where the term is defined. I would link in lede and remove in the Bitchin section. @Nourerrahmane: Any thoughts?s scope_creepTalk 20:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental question here is whether taifa, whose article does not mention Algiers, is the same thing as tai'fa. If it is, then I agree with Scope creep. If it us not then following the usual rules with it may be misleading.Elinruby (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same at all, these taifas are independent kingdoms of medieval islamic Spain, while the tai'fa is the community of corsair captains of Algiers. I agree with you on this scope. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC
Aha kingdoms not just governments. My question was whether this was related enough and it sounds like you are saying no, not at all, so: 1) not linking in the lede 2) the link on the body should go away also. I will make a point of finding that and posting here when done Elinruby (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still need to do a search specifically for this, but I *did* notice that if you wikilink "tai'fa" it goes to taifa. So there is a hole in the road there. Meanwhile, I will do the search before I close this. Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tone issue[edit]

infested is usually used for vermin, insects, bacteria... I assume it came from one of the sources? Can we nail down which one, or would you prefer that I change it to another word such as "covered"? Elinruby (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Elinruby i don't have internet connexion right now, i'll be available tonight (GMT +1). Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am not particularly fussed about it but we should talk about whether this is really what you meant, or we are channelling European historians again or what. Needs to be clarified and maybe attributed. Probably attributed. Elinruby (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Braudel 1995 vol 2 is quite a heavy use of the word infested so the source is correct. According to the OED, [1] infested means "to trouble a country or place with hostile attacks, to visit persistenly with large numbers with the purposes of destruction". It may be obselete though. The Cambridge dictionary states its a insect based gig. I think Braudel is using the original definition, i.e. old definition from 1536. scope_creepTalk 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may need changed? scope_creepTalk 20:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it may sound biased at first blush. If the source is using it and Nour's point is that the source is biased, which is a discussion that we have had a few times, I think it should be a quote. To a North American ear it sounds really derogatory and I question whether it should be in Wikivoice. Open to discussion on all of the above. Elinruby (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nour, it carries about the same tone as "infecte" in French, ie not just infected but disgusting, rotting and probably contagious. If you just want to say there were a lot of pirates in Mediterranean waters, I will find another word. If you are arguing in your head with French historians, I sympathize but your readers will mostly not have the background to realize that, and it should be attributed and probably in quotes.Elinruby sig added by scope_creepTalk 09:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly fix without removing it, but it does mean massive quantities of something, in this instance, a huge fleet. Quote it, if everybody agrees. scope_creepTalk 09:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaouch(?)[edit]

This turns up in the discussion of the Pact. Wiktionary has several definitions, none of which seem to apply. Can we talk about what you mean by this, since "Ottoman high official", "Moroccan service worker", and "grape varietal" seem to not be what you mean. Not saying don't use it, just that maybe we need to fix wiktionary. Also, by the rules of either French or English, the plural would be "chaouches". I was also confused by "gunner" this is usually a job not a branch of the military. Is this talking about what the French call "tirailleurs"?

Speaking of not saying don't use it, where was it that you were talking about slaves being worth less than a radish (or was it an onion)? In the part about prices crashing in the slave market? It's actually an interesting insight, like the corsair song, would kind of like to see that go back in, preferably cited. I just got stuck on clarifying the meaning of it.

You remembered that ? Lol i will add it !

For Chaouche or Chaoux in French: here is a depiction and a description

The one in the middle

Description of the Chaoux, the Ottoman Algerian FBI Nourerrahmane (talk)

Of course I remember that. Part of the problem was that the price of tulip bulbs for example went nuts in that period and I wasn't sure if radishes were scarce. It's a big discrepancy from the usual value of either slaves or radishes or onions, right? I think it is an interesting detail like the coffeehouses.

Revue: That's really interesting, and great source btw. Maybe we should send that in to wiktionary also. Chaoux had not occurred to me but that would seem like a valid plural to me for whatever that is worth. Is there some difference in meaning between chaouche and chaoux? Just asking because they would be pronounced differently. Maybe singular and plural?

PS Are you familiar with the White Cloaks in Game of Thrones? user:Elinruby 01:44, 10 June 2024. Missing sig added by scope_creepTalk 09:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway it sounds like that is what they were. I changed the unlikely spelling Chaouchs to Chaoux. I still need a hint about the gunners. Elinruby (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gunners are those who serve in the Artillery. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea who the White Cloaks are, i haven't seen GOT entirely Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why are they getting a special mention, is what I don't understand then probably. White Cloaks are another name for the Kingsguard. This may not be mentioned as much in the TV series as in the books. Jaime, the brother of the Queen, is a member of the Kingsguard, if that helps. Sort of a cross between bodyguards and fixers, is where I was going with that Elinruby (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, here they are more likely a police watching over governement officials, and they answer to the dey alone. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both, they guard and spy the the officials at the same time, i might adress them when i start working on the Odjak of Algiers again, this article is about the military government of Algiers, and needs a lot of work.
The gunners, or those who serve in the artillerty corps are known as "Tubjiyya" and they have a seperate unit but still answered to the Agha of the janissaries (who happen to be both the minister of defence in the cabinet and the commander in cheif of the army of Algiers)
Regarding GA status, i think scope is more fit to answer this question. i think we added all that was required in the peer review. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
when you say watching over, do you mean to guard or to spy on? It pretty much fits, but an analogy isn't much good if it needs an explanation. As it is, just asking questions in case it seems like a good idea to go deeper. I still don't understand why a gunner is distinct from a janissary, but I am not sure how much this matters. I will be back later on another device that is better able to get to sources and maybe that will tell me. We're almost done. I am still finding problems but they are further and further apart and smaller and smaller. What is the status of the GA nomination right now?

Done for a while[edit]

A lot of the alts are done, but someone should check to make sure it's all of them. Some of them are better than others, feel free to edit. Got a lot of small problems taken care of. Back later. Elinruby (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I check all the alts today. They are all done. scope_creepTalk 17:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK good. The standardization on diwan with an accent circonflexe on the a only and a lower case d is complete, as is, as far as I can tell, janissary with a lower case J. On italics, I left most foreign language words italicized but removed italics from words that are frequently used in the articles such as the titles dey and bey. All of that is as far as I can tell done. Got a bunch of spelling, not sure it was all of it though. Main article should read a lot better and possibly is done. I would like to go over it again. History is getting there. I found it a little harder to proofread since I am starting to know it by heart. I am going to go do some Sunday afternoon things and will be back later.
There will be a lot of folk looking at it at fac, experts and if there is problems with the spelling of diwan, then it will be surfaced there. scope_creepTalk 10:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well Nour agonized over it, so I am pretty confident that what we did here is at least defensible. The major point though was to spell it the same way consistently in the article, even though the sources don't. Because it is bad enough that the *people* all have three names and who knows how many titles. By the way, I did a pretty deep dive into the Manual of Style over something else (Pied-noir vs. Pied-Noir) and as far as I can tell from a fairly detailed examination there is no mention at all of the sort of nomenclature we have going on here in for example Hassan III Pasha, or pretty much anything on the African continent at all Elinruby (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Anybody have any idea which one the reviewer was looking at when he failed us for this?? Elinruby (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why anyone would fail this article because of citations, they probably thaught that lede should be cited too... Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last map[edit]

The last map, Map of the Barbary coast in 1667, by Richard Blome, is stellar. scope_creepTalk 20:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agree Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War with Spain section[edit]

a couple of things I just wanted to check on

  • in the caption of the Fort Santa Cruz image, I changed "chapel" to "mosque" because it appears to be a mosque with a dome and a minaret. It occurs to me however that "chapel" might be right if the Spanish repurposed the building.