Talk:Ottoman Tunisia

History of Tunisia and Ottomans

This article was written as part of the History of Tunisia. Accordingly such should remain its primary status. Notwithstanding, Tunisia's Ottoman era was certainly important and interesting.

In the Maghrib, the Ottomans were chiefly at Algiers, not Tunis, and from Ottoman Algeria came several attacks on Tunisia when under the Beys. The Ottomans soon removed the region of Constintine in the west and the region of Tripoli in the east from the traditional possessions of Tunisia. The Ottomans control in Tunisia was de facto only a short period, and did not survive the establishment of the Beys. In theory the Ottomans claimed a de jure presence until the French occupation, yet the Beys acted as sovereigns. Concurrently and secondarily, this History of Tunisia article may serve also as an reference for the Ottoman Empire's occupation of, and later its influence at, Tunis. Elfelix (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ottoman era in the history of Saudi Arabia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Misleading title/infobox

The title and the infobox are misleading: while the article is talking about "Ottoman Tunisia", the infobox only talks about the Eyalet and Mouradid periods, and the reader could think that Turkish rule ended in 1707 while it lasted until 1881. Note that this article also includes information on the 1707-1881 period.

On the other hand, Tunis was also a Beylik under the Muradid dynasty from 1613 to 1702, a period exclusively covered by this article.

--Omar-toons (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The relationship between the Ottomans and their northern African provinces are pretty complex and nuanced and tense, especially in the 19th century. It should be determined whether Beylik of Tunis and Ottoman Tunis should be merged, since the Beylik of Tunis was only semi-autonomous and appears to have existed at a level between what designates a province and what designates an autonomous province.

In a counterpoint, however, Ottoman Egypt and History of Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty are in two separate articles, and are formatted almost exactly the same as the relationship between Ottoman Tunis and Beylik of Tunis; both the Tunisian and Egyptian provinces after a certain date were nominally part of the Ottoman Empire but had autonomous control over their own affairs, but still considered themselves Ottoman. However, before that date, they were just provinces like any other.

In either case, practically, fully Ottoman Egypt and autonomous "Ottoman" Egypt (under Muhammad Ali of Egypt) are considered separate affairs, even though Muhammad Ali himself was a sultan-appointed governor of Egypt (wali) and considered himself so.

So, can this same formatting and usage be applied to Ottoman Tunis as well? What do other think about this? We would love to hear some ideas.

Ithinkicahn (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

In accord with Egyptian analogy. Elfelix (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.historyofnations.net/africa/tunisia.html

  Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 01:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 01:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 01:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 03:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 01:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 01:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 01:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 01:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 01:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 01:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 01:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 00:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 16:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 00:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

History of Carthage merge

For anyone interested, there is a discussion regarding merging History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage being held at Talk:History of Carthage#Merge. There is a new suggestion that material from those articles could be merged into History of Tunisia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tunisian flag till 1831.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Title

The current title is bad because the Beylik of Tunis was also nominally Ottoman. Srnec (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. One would expect a title like "Ottoman Tunisia" to correspond to the entire period from the establishment of Ottoman control up to the French conquest, as is a common understanding in many general references on the region's history. If we really want to preserve the split between these two articles, then this article should probably have a different name and "Ottoman Tunisia" should ideally be an overview or summary article covering both this and the content of Beylik of Tunis, as there are many contexts in which it is helpful or necessary to link to an article covering the whole period, not just one half of it.

I'm not sure that the logic of the split between this and the Beylik of Tunis article, or the choice of the latter's title to differentiate it from this article, is really clear either. There was both much continuity between these two periods and much political change in both, especially in the period prior to the 18th century that this article covers; e.g. see Abun-Nasr's 1987 A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic period (p.168-174; much-cited in this article), Moalla's 2003 The Regency of Tunis, 1535–1666 (see intro), and the Historical Dictionary of Tunisia (p.201). Per those sources, Tunisia was already more or less autonomous from Istanbul after 1591, with complicated internal politics and autonomy increasing progressively in multiple steps over time. I have yet to see a pattern of scholars relying on the same division of periods that we see here. The term "Beylik" could also refer to the period of the Muradids; e.g. Moalla 2003 has a chapter on "Beylical rule" starting with 1631, and see also description of Muradid power in Abun-Nasr 1987, p. 172-173. As a result, the current split just complicates the selection of a properly motivated article name. Note also that "Regency of Tunis" or "Tunisian Regency" is another common name not reflected in the current articles (e.g. see terminology used in these: [1], [2]), but that it too can apply or overlap to both periods (e.g. compare Blili 2022 and Moalla 2003). R Prazeres (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: Note that this issue was also raised years ago in a discussion above ("Misleading title/infobox"), but evidently not resolved. R Prazeres (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Part of the problem, of course, is that the beylik continued after Ottoman sovereignty was ended. So we have a beylik that is Ottoman and then French and we have an Ottoman period that stretches back long before that particular beylik was established. I think we need to retain the beylik article (perhaps under a different title and perhaps merged with Husainid dynasty), but this article needs to cover the entire Ottoman period. There will be overlap, but that is unavoidable. The real problem, I think, is the arbitrary end date of this article. Do you agree? Srnec (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's the main issue, and your suggestions sound like a good direction to take it. Likewise the merge with the Husainid dynasty is not a bad idea to consider. R Prazeres (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Srnec, I was looking back at this discussion and wondering if we should start by modifying the scope of the article specified in the lead and the infobox? Mainly: change the end year in the infobox to 1881 and change "from the 16th to the 18th century" in the first line to "from the 16th to the 19th century". The rest of the lead actually seems to cover events up to 1881 already (see 3rd paragraph). R Prazeres (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good first step. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, done here. Another minor question is whether the successor state indicated in the infobox should be the Protectorate, the "Beylik", or both? R Prazeres (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd go with the protectorate, i.e., the French replacing the Ottomans in relation to the underlying beylik. But both would also be fine. Srnec (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll just add the Protectorate for now and tentatively leave "Beylik" alongside it, pending further consideration. R Prazeres (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the next step would be to merge Husainid dynasty and Beylik of Tunis. Since Beylik of Tunis has more content, I assume it's better to merge into that article, but for clarity of scope I think the merged article should be called Husainid dynasty either way. Srnec, what do you think?

If the merge goes ahead, we may need to move some content back into this article if it fits better here (all post-1705 content was transferred from this article in 2021 [3]). Otherwise, a summary section for the Husainid period might be sufficient here (e.g. the History section of Husainid dynasty could be moved here). R Prazeres (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead covers up to 1881 already but for the sake of making sure the rest of the article is in sync with this, I've partially restored ([4]) material that was transferred to Beylik of Tunis in 2021 ([5]). That content appears to be sufficiently sourced and covers the missing period here briefly, though it may need revisions in the future (like the rest of the article). I haven't restored the transferred "reforms" section though, to avoid a more direct overlap with Beylik of Tunis#Major reforms (depending on any future merges of other articles, we can revisit where subtopics should end up).

Note that after the transfer of content to Beylik of Tunis, that article was considerably altered and rewritten by an IP user in 2022 ([6]), so this restored material is not a duplicate of the current material there. I also note that the IP's edits seems to have removed sourced material and added unsourced material there, all without explanation (some of the changes seem intended to reduce mention of Ottoman suzerainty, which is rather similar to the recurring POV vandalism that's been ongoing at Beylik of Tunis since then). So the former material may actually be more verifiable than the current content of Beylik of Tunis. R Prazeres (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

General clean-up

The article needs copy-editing, but while I was doing some (initially minor) revising I came across a claim (that the beylerbey of Algiers ruled Tunis for a time after its Ottoman conquest in 1574), which had no support in the sources cited (or in other sources as far as I know). I found other points where there were quotes that couldn't be found in the cited source, or were in a source other than the one cited next to the quote, etc. These may be accidental misreadings of the references and/or accidental misplacement of citations, but this and the overall style raises concerns to me about further WP:OR, original WP:SYNTHESIS, or other verifiability issues in the rest of the article. I've placed an original research maintenance template (the most appropriate one I could think of) to encourage editors to check that the cited sources actually support what is stated, especially if any information looks odd.

Aside from this, the article might benefit from a slightly more chronological approach, which might also reduce some overlap and repetition between sections that are not that well defined at the moment. R Prazeres (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

And another related issue: the citations themselves also seem to contain a lot of editorial notes. In at least one case (the same one mentioned above), the in-citation summary wasn't even correct. Explanations in footnotes are common in scholarly references, but in Wikipedia there's normally a separation between explanatory footnotes and citations; otherwise, the citations are just harder to follow and it makes separating any potential WP:OR from the actual sources harder. R Prazeres (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Change Ottmane Tunisia to Regency of Tunis

Hello. Ottmane Algeria has changed to Regency of Algiers. I think the Regency of Tunis is appropriate for Tunisia. what do you all mean? THEGoldberg1 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a serious option, yes. In current scholarship, as far as I've seen in English sources, all three of the Ottoman North African provinces are commonly referred to as regencies; Regency of Tunis in this case, as I mentioned here. But this should go through a WP:RM, as it did for Regency of Algiers. R Prazeres (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the term regency is more historical and appropriate for the three Ottoman Barbary states. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)