Talk:Regency of Algiers/Archive 1

can't edit

the same template, History of modern states of oto.... is repeated twice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzlinker (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Omar-Toons (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments

• Tahert14 claimed radical change was done. But I repaired this article with sources. Unfortunately, we have to add {{systemic bias}}. User tried to archive his/her own POV in this article with removing reliable sources. User must use talk pages and sourses. User tries to nationalize articles such as Invasion of Algiers (1775), Spanish expedition to Oran (1732), Bombardment of Algiers (1784), Treaty with Algeria (1815), Second Barbary War, Action of 28 November 1751, Bombardment of Algiers (1816), Bombardment of Algiers (1783), Spanish expedition to Oran (1732), Invasion of Algiers (1775), Russo-Turkish War (1787–1792), Battle off Cape Palos, Invasion of Algiers (1775), Battle of Cádiz (1669) etc. Takabeg (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg: Is there a specific question this RfC is asking about? RfCs are best if there is a particular sentence or paragraph from the article that is under dispute. What is the particular issue with this article? If you think that a particular editor is violating WP POV policy, it may be better to use the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard process: anyone can post a request for help there. Another choice, for reporting over-all behavior problems with a particular user is the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct process. --Noleander (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Merci. I wanted to ask you both of them. And do you know why nobody merged to Regency of Algiers ? Takabeg (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• (1) An RFC is usually used when editors have failed to achieve consensus on the talk page. In this case, it appears that editors have not even tried to do so. List your reasons for preferring a given edit or edits on the talk page, assume good faith, and try to see if you can get consensus. Use RFC if it fails. (2) I agree largely with Noleander's analysis. (3) I don't understand why this isn't merged into Regency of Algiers already. (4) The sourced content is preferable to unsourced assertions. This material should perhaps be improved, but should not be removed. (5) I agree that User:Tahert14's behavior is problematic, and is POV-pushing. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
  • P.S. There is a related discussion here on AN/I. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • here is my arguments:

1. (firstly cezayer =algiers= algeria), the name was Eyalet(regency of algiers) cezayer, then mamlaket cezayer since 1711 (kingdom of algiers)
2. the nation was ottoman algeria not ottoman empire (because it was eyalet(regency like walachia and crimea) not viyalet(provence like egypte and syria)
3. the start year is 1515 not 1517
4. p1:they were the ziyyanid dynasty in the west and the center of algeria , and the hafcid dynasty in extreme east
5. the flag: i gave two reliable sources
6. the french colonzation began in 1830 not 1831
7. not possesion it was protectorate (the algerian people who asked help from the ottoman empire, it was not a conquest) Tahert14 (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you will need to find reliable sources to back this up. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Tahert14 is a sockpuppet of a notorious nationalistic PoV-pusher/vandal (user:FAIZGUEVARRA). This user was blocked and the article restored to its encyclopedic/sourced version.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge

• Oppose with counterproposal Merge to Regency of Algiers, then move to Eyalet of Algiers or related namespace. Followed the link on the main page to this talk page, but no discussion. No reason to have generic era name for something that was in fact a settled administrative unit (that would need its own page anyway, and the content would be nearly identical). Will do some googling to try to ascertain the WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME, be it Regency/Eyalet of Algiers, Algeria, the Western Islands, or some other translation. — LlywelynII 03:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Political status

Hello,

As it has been the case since 2011, some users keep pushing their PoV making Algeria a kind of independent state before 1830 while, as it is commonly admitted by historians and historiography, the Regency of Algiers was an Ottoman province -no matter how autonomous it was, as it was also the case of all Ottoman Eyalets.

Note that this issue was previously discussed and disruptive editors blocked on ANI (1, 2 & 3)

--Omar-toons (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what it was. Take your time, read the sources provided [1] and you'll come to the same conclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me make it easier for you:

the Ottoman regency of Algiers was transformed into a sort of military republic when the troops stationed there rebelled against the Ottoman governor in 1689 and installed one of their officers as ruler, giving him the title of dey (maternal uncle). The Ottoman troops thus emerged as a ruling caste that periodically renewed itself with fresh recruits from various parts of the Mediterranean region. The deys, chosen from within this caste, governed Algeria independently from the Ottoman government. They retained religious ties to the Ottoman sultan, however, by recognizing him as caliph and by making the Ḥanafī school of law—the official school of the Ottoman Empire—the official school of law in Algeria as well.

— Encyclopædia Britannica

-- M.Bitton (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool, but that's a POV that could be described as WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE and Britannica can't prevail over secondary sources.

Sources also give different statements, such as:

• Algeria, 1830-2000: A Short History, Cornell University Press, 2004 (ISBN 9780801489167), p.3:

The Turkish presence in Algeria lasted from 1555 to 1830.

• Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism, 1800-1914: A-K, by Carl Cavanagh Hodge, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008 (ISBN 9780313334061), p.25

After centuries as both the westernmost province of the Ottoman Empire and a base for the Barbary pirates, Algeria was invaded and colonized by the French in 1830.

• Assimilation and Empire: Uniformity in French and British Colonies, 1541-1954, by Saliha Belmessous, Oxford University Press, 2013 (ISBN 9780199579167), p.119

When the French turned their eyes to the kingdom of Algiers in 1830, the region had been under Ottoman rule since 1516. The Regency of Algiers was a province of the Ottoman empire under the authority of the dey of Algiers, who had acquired a large degree of autonomy from the sultan and who was chosen by Janissaries, the Ottoman militia of Algiers.

• Jamil M. Abun-Nasr's A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period (Cambridge University Press, 1987, ISBN 9780521337670) is also of particular interest (pp.144-205: "Ottoman rule in the Central and Eastern Maghrib"), especially p.160:

[In 1671] Ottoman Algeria became a military republic, ruled in the name of the Ottoman sultan by officers chosen by and in the interest of the Ujaq.

... note that these are only the first results to show up on Google Books, and there are hundreds of results. But since WP:OVERCITE isn't the best way to an article WP:NPOV, I will stop here.

Btw, that is only to show that Algeria can not be considered as an independent entity, because that would be WP:OR.

Regards.

--Omar-toons (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Add whatever you think is missing in the article (that's what we're here to do), but do not delete reliably sourced content. Encyclopædia Britannica is just to prove a point, I could list others if needs be.

XavierGreen already pointed out the central issue that you seem to be missing. M.Bitton (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That Algiers was defacto independent during the time period in question is a well sourced historical fact. It conducted its own foreign relations, military and domestic affairs independent of the empire. At the height of its defacto independence the ottomons had no control at all over what went on in Algiers and merely collected an annual tribute payment. While the Ottomons themselves may have considered them to be provinces, in reality they were so only in name. The same situation was in effect in Tripoli and Tunis during the same period.

Some citations stating it was defacto independent -

[[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. I can provide dozens more if need be.XavierGreen (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an ancient -then primary- source, the two following [5][6] are both stating that the Regency was de facto independent but that it was also de jure an Ottoman province and, even if it managed it internal and external affairs (as it was also the case for many Ottoman provinces) it still recognized Ottoman suzerainty and overlordship. Btw, that doesn't make it a "truth" (see WP:TRUTH) but a POV that should be ponderated by the opposite view, that one giving more importance to the Ottoman suzerainty than to its de facto independence, and, as I wrote before, it is not a game of "who gives more citations than the other" (I can also give hundreds of refs saying that it was an Ottoman province without even talking about the large autonomy it enjoyed, but I won't, because of WP:OVERCITE) but a POV/NPOV issue and since the fact that the Regency was an Ottoman province isn't WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE it has to be mentioned on the article. --Omar-toons (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Omar-Toons: Nobody is interested in your original research, we're here to state what the reliable sources say and nothing else. Not mentioning something doesn't mean it does not exist, so even if you could (I doubt it) give millions of refs saying that it was an Ottoman province without even talking about the large autonomy it enjoyed, it still will not negate a fact that is realiably sourced and accepted by the likes of Encyclopædia Britannica (whose reputation is second to none). M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: Thank you for your valuable contribution. M.Bitton (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman Algeria started in 1520 OFFCIALLY

So I got interested in reading about some North African Ottoman history in this summer and I find it interesting that Hayreddin asked for Selim 1 protection in 1519 by sending him a petition from the Algerian population for protection in Late 1519 about October or November, after few months he received an official decree and was given the title of Beylerbey, provided him with 2,000 Janisarries and 4,000 Levantines. It was absorbed to the Empire in 1520, COINS were Struck Firday Khutba was made to the Caliph. Anyone who knows basic History would realize that this is asign of allegiance in kingdoms in Islam were you make a Khutba to the Ruler and struck coin an example would be Saladin making the Khutba towards the Abbasid Caliph.

I think we can safely remove the c.1517 sign, Oruc was never part of the Empire. This grey period was just some pirates ruling between 1517 and 1520, but many sources will never go to detail and say that 1516/1517 is when Ottoman started controlling Algeria which is wrong. Anyone agree with me? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

About english version

Hello Aṭlas (talk · contribs)

1)I don't understand why you cancel my contribs, better referenced than what was previously written. Moreover in the previous references there is a misappropriation of books because it is used to justify elements that are not dealt with in any way by the authors (in exemple the ottoman flag). On subjects as complicated as statutes or historical emblems the recommendations of Wikipedia require the use of a bibliography centered on the subject (the books on the history of Algeria or the regency of Algiers).

Historiography is rather polluted by terms derived from 19th historians who often recopy terms derived from colonial bias. This is why the contributions of modern historians (Kaddache, Meynier, Ghalem, Remaoun, Boyer, C-A Julien ...) are more neutral. I invite you to see the bibliography on the article of the French wikipedia which can serve as model.

2)The title Ottoman Algeria is not the most notorious, it is the regency of Algiers which seems most dependent in scholarly literature. 366 occurrences in Google Books for "ottoman algeria" vs 9940 occurrences in Google Books for "regency of algiers". In the recommendation of WP, the title must be the most notorious. Thank you, Kabyle20 (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, Aṭlas, and Surena20:

Hi, How can you support a version that contradicts the references? In the book of Abun nasr, p.151 and 152 ; the country is called "regency of Algiers" and the map is centered on the regency and not on the rest of the Empire. There is already a misinterpretation of the reference on this point. Then on the francophone wikipedia there has already been a discussion on this subject. This discussion made it possible to highlight references of quality centered on the subject. Like the historians Mahfoud Kaddache, Lemnouar merouche, and Gilbert Meynier. I will not quote here all the sentences, the references are available in history of the article and in the francophone page.

I would just quote Hassan Ramaoun historian at the Oran CRASC which summarizes quite well the opinion of various authors: "The Algerian State is undoubtedly an independent and sovereign entity, responding to the current definitions of international law, traditional conditions (territory, human community, public authority, effective independence, international recognition ) are largely united. The Turks managed to give the central Maghreb a geopolitical autonomy sufficient to differentiate them from neighboring countries (Collective coordinated by Hassan Ramaoun, Algeria: history, society and culture, Casbah Editions, 2000).

There is a consensus on several points: the name (Regency of Algiers), besides the current version is in contradiction with its own sources, the fact that the regency is a state and a rapid political description (organization, beylik ect. ..). Removing all this information without explanation and without bothering to open a book to understand them is simply vandalism. For the map it was approved by the historian Jean Louis Triaud who had participated in a controversy by giving his expert opinion at the request of a mediator of WP:fr ; Apart from this approval it is based on the euratlas historical background map and the works indicated in the description of Common. Thank you for replying by sources please. Best regards, Kabyle20 (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

M.Bitton stop this edit war now !!!! whats wrong with my map since it refer to the same year 1771 ???. --41.248.118.204 (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I updated the map with one from 1824. M.Bitton (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2021 (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:

• Kabyle Kingdoms in the Ottoman era at their height .jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've opposed the deletion of the file, as explained on the nomination page, but I do agree that the map is problematic and essentially includes WP:OR, so I'm removing it from the page with the recommendation that it be improved in the following way if it is to be used here: either remove Morocco from the Ottoman Empire territory or give it a different colour and clearly indicate that it was a temporary vassal. Also, as an optional recommendation for style: make the map vertically shorter so that it takes up less space on a page; the map is about the Maghreb only so the rest of the empty space below it is unnecessary and distracts from the relevant information.

Longer justification: Morocco was a vassal of the Ottomans for only a few years under the short and contested reign of Abd al-Malik I (as discussed on the Saadi Sultanate page and sources there Ahmad al-Mansur soon reversed the policy after him) and even in this time it was not integrated into the empire; whereas this map, as is, implies that Morocco was Ottoman after 1576, period. Considering that the map is supposed to be about Kabyle territory at an unspecified date, this is an odd place to include a side-claim that Morocco was Ottoman, especially when it is inconsistent with other maps on the page and isn't explained in the main text. I've yet to see any map from a reliable source include Morocco as part of Ottoman territory and this is not how most historians portray the general geopolitical history of the region. Nor does any other map on Wikipedia do this, including at the Ottoman Empire page or any map in Commons. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Misleading POV and original research

Hi Kabz15, you keep creating and inserting maps that show Morocco or parts of Morocco as part of Ottoman Algeria, which as already explained above is both inconsistent with any reliable history book and inconsistent with the text of the article itself. Your latest map (which I just removed) says it includes a list of "sources" in the corner, but that list is almost illegible and doesn't include full bibliographical details so neither myself or anyone can verify it. It also doesn't explain how you determined the territorial limits of brief Ottoman incursions to the west and doesn't make up for the obvious vagueness of the information presented. There is already a map in the first section of this page that shows many of the Ottoman campaigns into Morocco in a non-misleading way, with more precision, and with a list of sources; so in fact I don't see why any other map is needed along these lines, especially if its singular purpose seems to be to push a certain point of view.

Also worrying is this edit today where you copied information from this page, including some of the sources, to another page but presented it in an incomplete way and with less context (along with your map). You've made edits with a similar POV in the past, such as this one and this one. Please be more careful and don't represent information from sources in an incomplete, selective, or deceptive way that leads readers to a particular viewpoint that you favour (i.e. that Morocco was annexed or controlled by the Ottoman Empire). This could be seen as pushing Fringe views on the encyclopedia. Please review Wikipedia's policies on Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and Original research. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources included on the map highlight that the Regency under Salah Rais conquered Morocco up until Fez in 1554 and added these territories to the Ottoman crown or extended the border to Morocco

The others source highlight how Morocco recognised the Ottoman-Algerian sovereignty over eastern Morocco after the Battle of Moulouya

These are significant events that happened during the history of Ottoman Algeria which is why they’ve been included. Furthermore, the western “border” is not the border, these are the conquests which are shown in a slightly darker red colour. The Regency of Algiers did conquer these regions so what’s shown in the map under conquests has been validated and so has the justification for the addition of this map itself. The map simply shows conquests and raids and gives a more detailed view of these events which are not touched on as much in the other maps. In fact the other maps are quite vague and not detailed enough which is why I decide to add this map as it is more detailed, precise and includes much more information. Thanks, (Kabz15 (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC))

Hi Kabz15, it shouldn't be so hard to explain this easily-avoidable problem. Do any of the sources you cited there include maps that show these extended borders? If so, great, but your map still needs work for clarity. Or, did you just read that Fez was captured and then draw an arbitrary border around it by your own judgement (as it currently sounds)? If so, then your map is WP:OR. That's why the other map, which merely shows arrows and dates, is less misleading and is consistent with the way such information is presented in many other historical maps on and off Wikipedia; precisely because it avoids inserting the author's own assumptions without explanation. Moreover you keep ignoring the point I've made more than once now: inflating the territory of a state by drawing borders that existed ephemerally and were not established, and then slapping a date on them without clarifying, is misleading. The "conquests" you illustrate in that map are labelled just that: "conquests", without any context or clarification, which any general English reader would assume means a long-term occupation, because why else would you present a state's territory this way? And the "slightly darker" shade of red you use there is for all purposes so identical to the other shade as to be indistinguishable without a close look. I'm sure this is not what you intended, but the entire map looks like it's designed to be misleading while providing you, the editor, with plausible deniability about WP:OR. The only thing currently mitigating the problem on this page is the presence of other, more commonly-accepted maps; which merely makes your map all the more confusing and inconsistent. Moreover, as I pointed out above, you've replaced information on other pages with this map without adding context, so clearly it's not intended to be used carefully anyways.

To give you an analogy to consider: imagine if someone with a pro-Morocco POV made a map that showed the Saadian Empire as incorporating Tlemcen and eastern Algeria, included the text "Conquest of Tlemcen, 1551" (or "1556") on it (dates when the Saadians occupied the city, e.g. as per Abun-Nasr 1981 p.156-7) and then captioned it "Map of the Saadian Sultanate" without any further context. Any general reader would assume the map is showing that eastern Algeria was part of the Saadian Sultanate after 1551. Clearly, that would be misleading since the Saadians never occupied the city for more than a few years at best, and citing sources that mention the temporary occupation in support of such a map is a case of making the sources fit the POV instead of making the POV fit the sources; in other words, ignoring WP:NPOV. There is a way to highlight these "conquests" without being misleading, and there's already an example of it on this page and probably better examples elsewhere, but this isn't it. R Prazeres (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Well the difference between the Tlemcen battle and the battles in which the Moroccan regions were captured is that those were victories and sovereignty was actually established there for a brief while via the Wattasid sultans vassalage in the Kingdom of Fez and a treaty which acknowledged the sovereignty in the eastern part of Morocco. Also the border did briefly extend to these regions as confirmed by the sources. The presence in eastern Morocco itself was not exactly brief either and there are maps that do acknowledge these borders, however I do agree with your point that the “borders” seem to be misleading. As a result I’ve uploaded a new map making it clear that these regions were only briefly captured. Thanks, (Kabz15 (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC))

That's definitely an improvement, thanks. R Prazeres (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Kabz15: is there any good confirmation about those two exclaves in the south, in yourmap ? I think the regions are adrar and ain salah. Because apparently from what I've seen except from the expedition of salah reis, being that far away deep in tge south they were just abondonned for the local tribes untill the french colonisation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyhgfthj (talk • contribs) 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, most maps of the Ottoman Empire don't include those either, and as a rule few states were able to project direct power so far into the desert for long. R Prazeres (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Change of the title of the article

Hello to everyone,

I'm writing this message to share my opinion about an aspect of this article. Indeed, I think that the title should be changed. "Ottoman Algeria" defines the real status of the State of Algiers only during a particular phase of its history (namely the period when the government was ruled by a Beylerbey sent by the Ottoman caliph). Going from the revolution of the Deys in 1671 and more from the reign of Baba Ali Chaouch, the State of Algiers was politically and military independent of the Ottoman Empire, so, we can't really consider that as an "Ottoman" period as would suggest the current title.

My suggestion is the next : The best title would be "State of Algiers". Some people have considered that the term "Deylik of Algiers" would fit better with the subject. I share this opinion, it would effectively be more appropriated to use it. However, stills that it is not the better designation possible. As a matter of fact, using "Deylik of Algiers" would be great if we were talking only about the period between 1671 and 1830, when the State was ruled by the Deys. That would not include the autonomous eras of the Sultanate (from 1515 to 1533) and the Pachalik (from 1577 to 1671), and evidently the really "ottoman" period of the Beylik.

Also, you might know, maybe after reading what's above, that the period of the Beylik is a minor phase of the State of Algiers, from a chronological point of view. So, in my opinion, the current title contributes to reduce the whole modern period of Algeria to a minor part of its political history, which is damageable.

The term "State of Algiers" is the best because it includes all the eras that been through Algeria during its modern period, independently of its relation with the Ottoman Empire, but only depending on its government. Effectively, this one always took the aspect of a military republic, essentially ruled by the "Diwan", an institution similar to a Parliament composed by the Taïfa of Raïs (sailors), the representatives of the tribes, the notables of the Cities and of sedentary villages, the Spahis (native soldiers) and the janissaries (soldiers sent by the Ottoman power). I would add that this institution accompanied Algiers from the beginning of its history to its end, only the political field of action of the Diwan varied depending on who was at the head of the government. In some periods, the Diwan was more powerful than the head of state (pachalik) and during the Deylik, the Dey was literally elected by the Diwan.

To sum up, I consider that using the title "Ottoman Algeria" as it's the case currently is the less appropriately choice. Using "Deylik of Algiers" as some have suggested would be better but not ideal, and using "State of Algiers" would be perfect.

I hope that the argues I presented in this text will contribute to reach a new consensus on the title of the article.

Best regards,

--Sirroconouveau (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't really think that the title Ottoman Algeria only pertains to the Beylerbeylik of Algiers. Also the Deylik of Algiers was a split proposal, advocating that we should split the article between Ottoman Algeria (1516-1671), and Deylik of Algiers (1671-1830) similarly to the Tunisian articles, but since there isn't a point in doing it currently as the article is not long enough, discussion has been postponed. As for your proposal, i believe that "State of Algiers" is a term too broad, and can be used for many different things (such as thaalabite algiers). Also, during it's early years, Algiers wasn't even close to a state. It didn't even deal with it's own foreign affairs, and was completely aligned with the Ottoman Empire. If changing the article's name really is that important, then we can just rename it again to "Regency of Algiers", but in my opinion it doesn't really matter wether it's "Ottoman Algeria" or "Regency of Algiers".

Whatever748 (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

regency of algiers not ottoman algeria

hi I saw your article about Regency Algeria and saw that there was some fraud Since there are old books that prove that it is called the regency of algiers/kingdom of algiers, and not Ottoman Algeria Where Ottoman Algiers was between 1515-1567 https://books.google.dz/books?id=l7RJlmYGhXkC&dq=regency%20of%20algiers%20kingdom%20country&hl=fr&pg=PA733#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.206.96.64 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect, Regency of Algiers was not an independent regency, it was an Ottoman emirate, it was under the rule of the Ottomans, so it was paying allegiance to the Ottomans under their rule.

Shuval, T. (2000). Cezayir-i Garp: Bringing Algeria back into Ottoman History. New Perspectives on Turkey, 22, 85-114. doi:10.1017/S0896634600003289

http://countrystudies.us/algeria/16.htm Warrior4just (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

According to the book that I brought, it confirms its independence. Even if we go to the old books, there is no book confirming that Algeria at that time was called Ottoman Algeria, or they mentioned an Ottoman emirate.

Especially since there are some even recent sources mentioning that some of Algeria's policies were the opposite of the Ottomans' policies, the most prominent example of when Algeria's pirates kidnapped the Venetian ambassador

I apologize for not responding earlier, my account was closed 41.102.54.89 (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss and improve outline of Regency's political status

To Hamza3110022: the issue of splitting the article has been brought up here before and has elicited many opinions (see above), please discuss major proposals here instead of jumping the gun on your own by attempting to change the scope of this article and creating a separate unsourced article at Kingdom of Algiers (where did you even get that title?).

More generally, to all interested editors: this article currently does a poor job anyways of explaining and outlining the political status of Algiers across this period. This might be facilitating intermittent POV or OR pushes (in one direction or another) by new editors. The present infobox contains a timeline that isn't properly sourced (nor explained in the body of the article) and omits or contradicts what's described in reliable sources. For example, according to Abun-Nasr 1987 (pp. 153 and 159-160), Algiers had more autonomy than the article currently implies up to 1587, when a regular Ottoman provincial administration was installed, which roughly lasted up to 1659 when the Janissary aghas seized control and the Ottoman-appointed "pasha" retained only symbolic authority, then up to 1671 when a dey was elected locally, and then from 1711 the Ottomans simply recognized the local dey as pasha instead. There are other scholarly sources to consult and there's much more to elaborate, so please improve the article with a more objective reading of the sources and more careful consideration of Wikipedia's content policies. R Prazeres (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: For convenience, most of the same political-chronological outline described by Abun-Nasr (minus the 1710-11 event) is also provided in the Historical Dictionary of Algeria (p.439) and Encyclopedia of Islam 2's Algeria article (p.268). I'd have to dig deeper for more but these are just some accessible examples to start. R Prazeres (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Algerian flag and coat of arms

So i made modifications for the flag and the coat of arms of the kingdom of Algiers, and supported my modifications with no less than 13 reliable sources, apparently this was not enough somehow and M.bitton thinks a poorly single sourced flag (which is a port a flag actually) is sufficient enough, same goes for the coat of arms, I even provided pictures from my hometown Algiers for that matter. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually Italiancorsair, yes it is edit-warring, and you're in no position to contradict Wikipedia policy. Please discuss and resolve this issue here. Leave this part of the article alone until that's done. The process for dealing with disagreements is outlined in WP:BRD and the implications of edit-warring are outlined at WP:EDITWAR. It should be noted that there's a relevant discussion at Nourerrahmane's talk page, but this is still the place to solicit a consensus for issues relating to this article. R Prazeres (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, after seeing the other page about the Kingdom of Algiers i was devided about if we should improve this ottoman Algeria thread or just create a new page about the political independence of ottoman Algeria, after reading few sources,

كتاب المرآة لحمدان بن عثمان خوجة Histoire d'Alger sous la domination turque, 1515-1830, par Henri Delmas de Grammont Histoire du royaume d'Alger : avec l'etat présent de son gouvernement, de ses forces de terre & de mer, de ses revenus, police, justice, politique & commerce, par Laugier de Tassy A Short History of Algiers: With a Concise View of the Origin of the Rupture ... Published by EvertDuyckinck كتاب الأتراك العثمانيون في أفريقيا الشمالية عزيز سامح التر

I think we shouldn't make another page about Ottoman Algeria, yet i beleive this thread needs to be improved, it crually lacks informations about diffrent aspects; like taxation, the political independence of Algiers which happened in 1659 with the Janissary revolution and the Agha period, these sources specifically mention that Algiers became a military republic from this date onward, and this was confirmed by Hamdan ibn othman khodja's book "the mirror" since he was an official in the goverment of Algiers before it fell to the french

a section is missing for the Dey , as it might look confusing to many about his real political position in the government Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

By "thread" I assume you mean article, but yes it does need improvement (as most articles do). In addition to adding material, I think it would also help if we organized the history section in a clearer, more chronological way, which should make it easier for readers to follow and easier for editors to expand.

Just make sure that any content you add is clearly derived from reliable sources and indicated as such with accompanying citations, as I noticed some of your recent edits elsewhere did not do that. This is a core policy of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Verifiability), so it's crucial that we follow it, otherwise the problems will get worse, despite any good intentions. If you need help with formatting or have questions about how to do certain things, don't hesitate to ask. R Prazeres (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

thank you very much, i will need to wait a bit before making any modifications, yet i will probably make a section for the the Agha period (if any other users can do that it's fine by me), it's a very important phase in Algerian early modern history yet often overlooked, because the Janissary revolution of 1659 was a turning point in the emancipation of Algiers from ottoman suzrainty, the end of the Pasha rule in Algiers marked the end of the ottoman interference in Algerine politics both internally and externally, and this had impacts on Algiers itself and its relations with european powers, what Ali chaouch dey did 50 years later in 1710 was manly ending a period of trouble and sending the pasha home since he was just a figurehead with no power whatsoever, i will also take note of what you said, and i will abide by the rules of Wikipedia. 46.193.65.138 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That sounds good. If helpful, in my comments right before this discussion (see "Discuss and improve outline of Regency's political status" section above) I mentioned and linked some general references that could help as a starting point.

By the way, don't forget to stay logged in when adding a new comment, so your IP doesn't show up instead of your username (in this case it's obvious it was you, but in other discussions it can lead to confusion). Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

What we can improve about ottoman Algeria

So based on what has been discussed with Mr R Prazeres and other users, i beleive thes the history section should be organized in a clearer, more chronological way, which should make it easier for readers to follow and easier for editors to expand, Also there are sections that should be improved as well: Mideterranean pivateers : More should be added to this section, this was the iron head of the spear of the Algerian military doctrine, what could be added to it is the way Algiers conducts its foreign relations, the earlier and the latter depended heavily on eachother, the minister of the marine of algiers (wakil al kharaj) was also the foreign affairs minister and assumed his position from the port of Algiers (Cezayirli Hasan pasha as an example) the Janissary Revolution: the Agha period and early dey period is a very important phase in Algerian early modern history yet often overlooked, because the Janissary revolution of 1659 was a turning point in the emancipation of Algiers from ottoman suzrainty, the end of the Pasha rule in Algiers marked the end of the ottoman interference in Algerine politics both internally and externally, and this had impacts on Algiers itself and its relations with european powers, what Ali chaouch dey did 50 years later in 1710 was manly ending a period of trouble and coups and sending the pasha home since he was just a figurehead with no power whatsoever and also weakened a bit the authority of the divan of Algiers (the divan was the main instrument of Algerian politics and i beleive it's what characterises the republican aspect of the state, so its section should be expanded a lot ), Ottoman Algerian hisory should be devided in two parts : the actual ottoman rule in Algiers period with various degrees of autonomy; and the second period: the quasi-independent Algerian state, various sources describe Algiers as a Military republic (Hamdan ibn othman Khodja, Henri Delmas de Grammont, Aziz Samih Ilter, Laugier de Tassy, a short history of Algiers published in new york in 1805) since the Agha period, Algiers had multiple uprisings and faught many wars) the economy  : Taxation (THE) second most important source of revenue for the Algerian state is not mentionned here, it should be added with details the Administration  : it needs to be expanded, and a "Dey" section should be added because it can be confusing to hear this word being mentionned many times without actually understanding what is it about and its political status vis a vis the ottoman porte , the section "Political Status" should be removed in my opinion. other sections should be added like the city of Algiers, often viewed as the most powerful and diverse city in the barbary region a section about the war with spain (1776-1784) should be added in History section, this war led to the liberation of Oran city from spain, it was celebrated by algerian historians of the time, like ibn Ruqaya al tilimsani in his book (Al Zahra Nayyira) i would like to the discuss about the official flag of Algiers, as i have many sources + paintings about it which strongly disagrees with the one being put in this article (even if i aknowledge how famous it is). i'm Open to all suggestion. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: I have reverted your last edit because Aziz Sameh (the author cited for all the content that you added) is not a historian. If you have reason to believe that what he has to say has any merit, then it shouldn't be difficult to find reliable sources that say the same thing. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

What he said was mostly taken from Henri Delmas de grammont, and also charle andré julien was cited in my sources, also i dunno how tou feel about algerian historians, aziz sameh had my attention because he used ottoman archives in his book (shown in sources), otherwise i agree. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: If that's the case, then why use him at all? I'm not sure that Henri Delmas de Grammont would qualify as proper RS either, so common sense should prevail when dealing with claims that seem either unusual or extraordinary.

I apologize for deleting the some content that was in fact attributed to other sources (they all looked like the same source). Yahya Bouaziz is a historian, so RS. charle andré julien is RS. "مجلة التاريخية المغربية" seems RS (I haven't checked properly though). You're obviously welcome to restore them. M.Bitton (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, one more question if I may ask, how do you feel about : Hamdan ibn Othman Khodja, cherif al Zahar Diaries, and Ahmed taoufik al madani ? and how do i know if an author is RS ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hamdan ibn Othman Khodja and cherif al Zahar are primary sources. Al Madani is RS. The reliability of an author depends on context. I suggest you read WP:RS. M.Bitton (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me to insist on this subject but i beleive that the flag of Algiers should be changed to a more accurate version, there are numerous sources that describe it, along with some paintings:

-كتاب حرب الثلاثمائة سنة بين الجزائر واسبانيا 1492 – 1792, أحمد توفيق المدني (300 years war between Algiers and spain, Ahmed Taoufik al madani) p175.https://archive.org/details/Harb.Al-thalathuma-at.Sanah/page/n179/mode/2up?view=theater

-Alexandre Rang, Histoire d'Aroudj et de Khaïr-ed-din. « le déploiement d'un grand drapeau national formé de trois bandes de soie, rouge, verte et jaune, et orné de croissant d'argent »[7]https://books.google.fr/books?id=xr05IU8yPKoC&pg=PA274&dq=drapeau+r%C3%A9gence+d%27alger+rouge+vert+jaune&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=Xu9DVI7MA5XtaInrgeAO&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

-Nadir Assari, Alger: des origines à la régence turque. «  A l'époque turque, le drapeau d'Alger était formé de trois bandes de soie rouge, verte et jaune.  » https://books.google.fr/books?id=G5MMAQAAMAAJ&q=drapeau+r%C3%A9gence+d%27alger+rouge+vert+jaune&dq=drapeau+r%C3%A9gence+d%27alger+rouge+vert+jaune&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=Xu9DVI7MA5XtaInrgeAO&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ

Marius Bernard, L'Algérie qui s'en va. « Rien n'y manque, pas même la longue hampe où flotta si longtemps l'insolent drapeau de la régence avec ses trois bandes horizontales, jaune en bas, rouge en haut, vert au milieu. » https://books.google.fr/books?id=yAU6AQAAIAAJ&q=r%C3%A9gence+d%27alger+bandes+rouge+vert+jaune&dq=r%C3%A9gence+d%27alger+bandes+rouge+vert+jaune&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=AvNDVNXyGdjgatyngJAH&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCQ

Sander Rang,Ferdinand Denis,Jean-Michel Venture de Paradis, Fondation de la régence d'Alger: histoire des Barberousse, « ; c'était du haut de ses vastes terrasses sur lesquelles flottait l'étendard rouge, jaune et vert ».https://books.google.fr/books?id=fL01AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA193&dq=r%C3%A9gence+d%27alger+rouge+vert+jaune&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=ePNDVNXjFsrTaJzugNgM&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=r%C3%A9gence%20d'alger%20rouge%20vert%20jaune&f=false

Mouloud Gaïd : L'Algerie sous les Turcs, p.58 : « Le grand drapeau d'Alger, formé de trois bandes de soie, rouge, verte, jaune, se déploya majestueusement au-dessus de la porte »https://fr.shopping.rakuten.com/offer/buy/5658687849/l-algerie-sous-les-turcs-format-broche.html

- According to Tarek Kahlaoui, Creating the Mediterranean: Maps and the Islamic Imagination (Brill, 2018), p. 216, the city of Algiers is represented by a flag of red, yellow and green horizontal stripes in an Ottoman atlas of 1551 (Al-Sharafīʼs atlas of 1551, Paris, ms arabe 2278. Fig. 10: fol. 5r, Istanbul’s flag; Fig. 11: fol. 6v, Gabesʼs flag; Fig. 12: fol. 4r, Binzertʼs flag; fig. 13: fol. 4r, Algiers’s flag).https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-62562-0_13/figures/6

Few paintings:

-BRIGANTINE POLLY OF NEWBURYPORT CAPTURED BY ALGERINE PIRATES, 1793. AMERICAN SHIPS VII.https://oldprintshop.com/product/28134?inventoryno=14176&itemno=52

-The Flags of the World - Their History, Blazonry, and Associations, Plate 7. Library of Alexandria, 1890.https://archive.org/details/flagsofworldthei00hulmiala/page/n177/mode/2up

-Dominic Serres (British 1722-1793)'Gibraltor'"The Royal Academy records for 1773 list a painting submitted by Serres described as 'A View of Gibraltar with a Squadron of English Men-of-War; in the foreground is an Algerine xcheck'".https://www.bonhams.com/auction/21851/lot/58/dominic-serres-british-1722-1793-gibraltor/

-17ème 18ème siècle FLAGS PRINT 1950s 6979 illustrations lithographie papier imprimé.https://www.etsy.com/fr/listing/236431704/17eme-18eme-siecle-flags-print-1950s?gpla=1&gao=1&

-Circle of Adriaen van Diest(The Hague 1655-1704 London), A fierce encounter between the Royal Navy and the infamous Barbary pirates.https://www.bonhams.com/fr/auction/27489/lot/52/circle-of-adriaen-van-diest-the-hague-1655-1704-london-a-fierce-encounter-between-the-royal-navy-and-the-infamous-barbary-pirates/

there also numerous illustrations about the Algerine Red jolly roger, only two authentic versions exist in the world and both are Algerian:

-https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%85land_piratflagga.jpg (Åland museum, finland)

-https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-16164191 (Portsmouth museum, UK)

-Drapeau des pirates barbaresques, gravure de la fin du 18e siècle.https://www.meisterdrucke.fr/fine-art-prints/Unknown-artist/949442/Drapeau-des-pirates-barbaresques,-gravure-de-la-fin-du-18e-si%C3%A8cle..html

-Mappemonde - Carte gravure ancienne originale XIXe aquarelle.https://www.ebay.fr/itm/334423162688

-Naval Flags of Nations, Kingdoms, Fleets, 89. Algerine Pirate's Flag.https://www.antique-prints.de/?cat=KAT115&lang=FRA&product=P010573

-Flags of All Nations 1823.https://heraldryofthewestcountry.wordpress.com/flags-of-all-nations-1823/ Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nourerrahmane. I haven't looked through most of your new additions, but I have one preliminary question some of the latest edits: can you explain why you deleted content like this? Usually, removing sourced content requires a clear reason (at minimum, it should be explained in your edit summary).

Also, a few formatting/style comments:

• Don't add links in section titles/headings, only in regular text (see MOS:LINKSTYLE). I've removed the ones I've seen and placed the links in the main text.
• I've added some "citation needed" tags after certain parts that you may have edited (but also after some parts that were there before you). This is to make sure all content is easily verifiable with a source, even the details. For example, there are several paragraphs that end with statements without citations, which makes it unclear what the supporting sources are. If, by chance, the supporting citation is in the following paragraph, then copying/repeating that citation at the end of the previous paragraph makes this clearer, to preserve text–source integrity.
  • If helpful, the general guideline at WP:INLINECITE is: "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text."
• When you've completed most of your changes (or when you think you're pausing for a while), I'll add a tag at the top of the article to request some copy-editing. There are various grammar and style issues in the new content which should be cleaned up by editors with good English writing skills. Some other formatting details may need be revised too. This is a pretty common issue, especially when large amounts of text have been added; I'm just letting you know in advance.

Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Prazeres, I’m sorry for deleting sources content without explanation, actually i have detailed that content in the political status, so i deleted to avoid repeat

i will also make sure to provide reliable sources in where you put citation needed.

and i think ill be pausing for a while, i believe i added the most essential content about the history of Ottoman Algeria

indeed grammar is an issue and i hope i can rectify some texts very soon Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nourerrahmane, thank you for clarifying the deletion, that sounds reasonable. If other editors prefer some of the old content, they're welcome to restore and/or integrate it with new material. Since you're finished most of your edits, I'll add the copy-editing tag I mentioned; everyone is welcome to help with revisions and proofreading. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello Prazeres, thanks for all the rectifications and i will sure take them into account.

i wanted to know what you think about leon Galibert as a source

thanks Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nourerrahmane, if you mean this, it might be ok, but it's also very old. In general, we should rely on more current scholarly sources (as recommended by WP:SOURCETYPES), because the older the source, the more likely it is to be outdated or to contain outdated material, and there are quite a few recent references. But it also depends on context. One option, when citing very old or potentially outdated sources, is to state the author/source of a certain piece of information explicitly in the text (example: "According to Léon Galibert, [...]"), so that readers are more aware and can make judgements. R Prazeres (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think imperial estate fits well not only because its sourced but because of the characteristics of the regency since its foundation, autonomy, state institutions ( diwan ) and how big it was, comprising 3 beyliks which uis equivalent to provinces

the revolution of 1659 didn’t cut links with ottoman empire but it did rnd its tutelage through the Pashas it sent to « rule » Algiers Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

What wording does the source use, exactly? (In French, I assume.) Because in an Ottoman context, "imperial estate" is not common terminology as far as I know, at least not in English sources, so it's also not clear what it's supposed to mean. R Prazeres (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Nourerrahmane, you may have also missed my question here earlier; could you answer this when you have a chance? (See my comment directly above this one.) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

it says : Le rôle important de la flotte de la régence dans les campagnes maritimes ottomanes et cette adhésion volontaire donnent un caractère particulier aux relations entrer Alger et Constantinople. La régence est considérée non comme une simple province mais comme un « État d'Empire »

but i agree with you, imperial estate is not a common wording and it looks more peoper to the source itself, that's why i removed imperial estate and used the correct terms: beylerbeylik and pashalik, in fact the ottoman empire and the political elite of the regency disagreed on what Algiers actually was to the ottomans, the Ottoman empire considered it to be an Eyalet, an ottoman province, and imposed the pasha system to keep it this way, janissaries and corsairs of the regency wanted independence without cutting religious ties with constantinople. according to many authors, european powers were confused of this state of affairs, and had to deal with Algiers only when it became clear to them that the authorities there acted on their own, as stated in the Relations with France thread in the article Nourerrahmane (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I haven't kept track of all your edits, I didn't see you had changed it already, I just assumed you were busy with other things. The way it looks in the infobox now I think is great, that's as clear as it can be with all the sources in mind. Thanks for taking the time to answer this anyways. R Prazeres (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

removed text

I don't really have any objection to the following but it is uncited and I am not entirely sure what it says. I think it means that Barberousse transported refugees from Andalusia to Algiers, but the grammar is tangled and goes beyond my willingness to guess meanings. After settling in Jijel, Oruç and his brothers took care of persecuted Muslims in Andalusia, so they began frequenting their fleets on the shores of Andalusia and were transported to North Africa Frequenting is definitely the wrong word in this context and it doesn't seem integral to the narrative. I don't mind finding a place for it if someone can explain it to me, and since we are here, provide a citation. @Nourerrahmane: I noticed you are watching the page. Please do let me know if I introduce any errors of fact, and if you read Arabic or know somebody who does, you will greatly improve the ability of speakers of European languages to verify your content if you will translate the titles of the Arabic-language references. Sources in Arabic (or French, or Spanish) are acceptable but English is preferred if available. If those are the ones you have because this is a translation, though, I understand having been there myself. Just saying, at the moment I am taking the Arabic-language sources on faith.

On the whole though, good work.

It also seems to me that there are some stubs floating around WP:PNT about battles in this period in Morocco or Algeria that may be relevant. It has been a while and I haven't checked since I noticed this one, but I will look into that if you like. Pretty sure Beni Abbes is mentioned in some of them, for example. I am done for the evening as there is other stuff I have said I would do, but I will be back. PS: if this is a translation it should be tagged as such for compliance with copyright law, which is no big deal to do -- I can do it for you if you let me know -- but is nonetheless mandatory. Let's not be the editors who get Wikipedia into trouble ;) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Elinruby thanks for all the corrections you made, o tried to translate the arabic and french sourced content word for word and was more focused about the very essential part of ottoman algerian history, like the barbarossa brothers, political status, war with spain (there is literally a 600p book just about that!),i think you did good to remove that text, not only because it was poorly formulated but its timeline is false, it is reported in many sources that hayreddin did a campaign after the fall of penon , he brought many andalusians (around 70k) and were settled in Algiers , this prompt charles V to launch a counterattack on the city cherchell under the leadership of andrea doria

i was hesitant to put it since it was just before hayreddin left to Constantinople

i will sure put sources in all where you put (ciitation needed) yet I’m having trouble finding RS english sources.

Since I’m in a trip right now i can’t work on it right now

but I’m planning to work on economy and territorial administration as they are poorly done with very few sources Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

C'est bien. I am also quite preoccupied with something else at the moment, but the work was so substantive and so needed that I wanted to make sure it was readable by monolingual English speakers and did not get deleted. At the moment I am taking most of the content on faith, since my work on Wikipedia is the extent of my study of this history, but that work has been somewhat extensive, everything that is in the article seems plausible, and for the moment I am focused on the English.

I saw that long talk page section on the flag but have not yet attempted to assess the issue. Let me know when you have added text to the article and I will prioritize an edit. I can cope quite well with word-for-word from French or Spanish but am completely clueless about Arabic, which machine translation does not seem to handle very well either. When we are through with this article, I know of quite a few others that may be of interest, since I am of course aware that French was the colonial language and Arabic sources may have another perspective. Bon voyage et a bientot Elinruby (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

As to RS English sources: Do you have access to Wikipedia Library yet? I am gathering that you are rather new at en-wp. If not, it may help you to know that if you register an email address at JStor you will have access to 100 articles a month, which is a start. I forget how many edits are needed to get access to the library but it isn't that many. I will look it up. I can also look for sources when I am done with the English, but I have a long-standing mess elsewhere that I want to clean up first. Elinruby (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Odjak

this term is introduced very early in the article and not explained until much later. It probably warrants its own section but pending any other comments about organization that may arise as to the order of the sections, a sentence or two of explanation should be added the first time it is mentioned. Elinruby (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

A history book or Jamil Abou Nasr's personnal view ?

I don't agree at all with most of what Abus nasr had to bring about Ottoman Algeria -refusing to call the Ottoman Algerian elite as Algerian, he uses the word Turk instead even after the separation of 1659, though i agree that the political elite was "Turkish in origin" it was politically Algerian, saying turks and Algerians while speaking about internal matters is fallacious at best, on foreign politics it is even worst.

-calling the Algerian spanish peace of 1786 a "stalemate" even after spain losing its entire Algerian holding, sustaining a defeat in 1775 and the failed bombings of 1783 and 1784 with spain paying one million pesos for peace...

-stating that decline of the Algerian state (he literally refuses to use this word, rather he calls it the Dey regime") in second half of 18th century, this is totally false, these wwere the bright years of the rule of Muhammed bin Othman pasha who ruled for over 25 years, despite Abu nasr using al Zahar book he totally ignored this important Dey which all known Algerian sources depict as the best Dey of Algiers

-too much focus on the revolts of the Darqaoua, as if the history of ottoman Algeria spinned around these events, while they are important since it showcased the need for reforms, it's weird to have given so much details on this matter while disregarding others totally

-saying that the deys didn't not rule the country except towns, and that the city of Algiers fell and not the whole country because the deys controlled only the capital puts the cherry on top of this biased middle eastern superficial and fallacious view on Algerian history, as if it wanted to push a certain view about Ottoman Rule in the middle east on Algeria itself, which led to those big mistakes. neverthenless i still used this book on some subjects such as taxes and goverment type Nourerrahmane (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Every author has their own analysis of historical events, but per WP:NPOV and per WP:OR, our job is not to decide who's right, or to give our own evaluation of what reliable sources should say. Abun-Nasr is certainly a well-known and reliable source, so it would be problematic to remove him on the basis that you or I, as Wikipedia editors, disagree with his point of view. Instead, Wikipedia policy is that if different scholars give different perspectives on the same issue, we must cite each author and say what each of them says about it, while also keeping WP:WEIGHT in mind. E.g. the Wikipedia article can say something like (hypothetically): "Historian Abun-Nasr argues that the outcome of the war was a stalemate. Another historian, [name of author], argues that it was strategic victory for Algiers. Another historian, [name of author], believes that the main consequence of the war was [...]" And so on. A good idea, for balance, might be to look at newer reliable sources, especially well-cited ones, and add what they say in addition to what the already cited sources say. R Prazeres (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello R Prazeres, i wanted to know your opinion about Aziz sameh ilter’s book « turk ottomans in north africa » this book is over 700 pages all about Ottoman Algerian political history. I remember M.bitton refused using it claiming that Aziz sameh was not a historian, yet i haven’t seen an arabic or Algerian RS that didn’t have Aziz sameh as a source including Nasser saidouni and yahya bouaziz and abdderahman al jilali, all their works about Ottoman Algerian history had aziz sameh as a source. That book is very important since it containts an Ottoman perspective and documents including firmans, not using it is a waste i believe. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton (pinging in case they want to reply) may have good reason to say that. When looking the book up in English at any rate, very little comes up, so it's a little hard for me to confirm its reliability. Who is the publisher? R Prazeres (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: I have no idea who the original publisher is (all that was presented is Arabic the translated copy), but I do know that Aziz Sameh is not a historian. Some of the book's content (no idea what) may well be used by Arab historians (as stated by Nourerrahmane), but that doesn't change anything, especially if (as Nourerrahmane stated previously) it's based mostly on Henri Delmas de Grammont's book.

I have noticed that a lot of content has been added to the article in my absence. Did you get the chance to review it? M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No I haven't reviewed the new content in much detail, for lack of time and partly also lack of access to many of the new sources. (And I'll be away from home for much of the next couple of weeks too, so I'll be less active.) I believe it's all constructive and I've encouraged some copy-editing, but I'm sure the information itself would benefit from a second look, as always. Thanks all, R Prazeres (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Culture section needed ?

the religious tariqas, also known as sufi orders like the Qadiris and the darqawis and tijanis, played an important part in the regency’s existence, they helped the Barbarossa brothers establish the state, and were the true link between authorities and tribes, they had their share of naval spoils and could unleash big revolts. The andalusians were the main paragons of cultural life in cities like Algiers, tlemcen, constantina, and medea. The turks, despite being a ruling military elite, also had their share of cultural influence. All this mix shaped the cultural identity of contemporary Algeria. What do the much respected gentleman here think about this ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

A "Culture" section is a great idea and it's pretty common in this type of article. The existing "Architecture" section could easily be a subsection of that, with other subsections for each major subtopic, etc. The layout of Ottoman Empire is a good example to compare with, I think. R Prazeres (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess not because of this new template… Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The template doesn't mean we can't add things, it just means we need to also consider how to deal with the overall length of the expanded article. My opinion is that we will need to move some of the large subtopics (e.g. about specific wars) into other articles (new or existing ones), leaving a summary here instead; but we can start a new talk page discussion about this. I think you can safely add information about culture; if it becomes long, we can take that into consideration with the rest too. R Prazeres (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, i already added a new topic about this Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Dealing with the overall length of the expanded Ottoman Algeria article

So, i beleive i covered the political and economical aspect of Ottoman Algeria to better understand its developpement and its character while moving some large subtopics such as the battle of mostaganem in 1558 and Bougie 1555 to other articles, the wars covered in the article were the most important since they always had new notable consequences on the Regency. I focused mostly on their background and their aftermath while summerising some important events, and i also did some reorganization in some sections to better understand the corsairing diplomacy that Algiers imposed in the mediterranean. I was about to add a "Culture" section but i'm open for suggestions. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Some content in lead

The IP here is partly correct. Commentary and analysis, even if otherwise valid, should come directly from reliable sources, rather than from editors. Verifiability really needs to be consistent throughout the article, so citations are needed here to authors who state this point directly.

Separately, having a long quote is also unusual in the lead, as the lead should be a straight-to-the-point summary (see MOS:LEAD). I've moved this content, provisionally, to a "legacy" section ([8]). This section could be retained as a place for discussing retrospective analyses or long-term consequences of the Regency's existence or its end, etc; or this material can be moved again to another appropriate part of the article instead. (Either way is fine by me.) R Prazeres (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi R.Prazeres, i actually took the citation directly from Keddash, but somehow i judged that it was unecessary to say so; while John wolf for example says otherwise, shall I mention what they both said ? and if so, shouldn't this be more appropriate to French Algeria article ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean the quote by Grammont comes from Keddash's work, or the analysis about the consequences of the French intervention? R Prazeres (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The second one, the analysis about the consequences of the french intervention. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for confirming. If Keddash said this (I haven't checked but it makes sense to me), then yes, you can just replace the "citation needed" tag with a citation to that source. Basically, if in any doubt, include citations; even if we end up with more citations than necessary, it's not a big problem, whereas having fewer citations than expected can cause confusion or other problems down the road. And if another significant author gave a different analysis, then yes ideally we should also mention what they said, per WP:NPOV. In that case, it might be clearer to also mention each author's name explicitly inline when describing each analysis/point of view.

As for your second question; yes, I think this could be more or equally relevant at French Algeria, or maybe French conquest of Algeria. So you could either move it there, or leave it here but add similar content in one of those other articles. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The coat of arms/ motto/ Flag

This coat of arms was used in the colonial period in the kingdom of Algiers, for the motto it is the motto of Algiers not the whole kingdom/ the red and yellow stripes flag was used more often it's better to use it rather than this one Algeriancorsair (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

You can check the sources of both the flag and the coat of arms, the yellow and red stripes is a land force flag according to the flag bulletin of 1986 it’s the only RS about that flag .

the motto is written in every official document during that period including diplomatic treaties which you can check yourself in this article.

As for the coat of arms, according to the arab source and albert devloux, it dates from Hassan basha rule somehow in 1544-1564 as written in bab dzira. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Henri Klein and Flag bulletin also mention it as contemporary to the Deylik period. There is another RS about it which goes back to the Barbary wars (late 18th century) which describes it in details, as did the two previous sources, I’ll put it very soon, So we can end this debate about Flag/Coa/motto for good and focus more on the content of the article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Kingdom of Algiers

So i followed a little debate about what was the official title of the Regency of Algiers in English and French Sources, including official correspondances and maps and treaties, the word "Kingdom" is very much present in English sources such as here https://archive.org/details/sketchesofalgier00shal/page/n13/mode/2up and here https://archive.org/details/ashorthistoryal00duycgoog/page/n30/mode/2up and these Ottoman maps: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Cedid_Atlas_%28Europe%29_1803.jpg and https://www.alamyimages.fr/en-turc-piri-reis-1465-1555-feuille-a-partir-du-livre-sur-la-navigation-l-17eme-18eme-siecle-l-encre-la-peinture-et-l-or-sur-papier-walters-art-museum-w658-64a-acquis-par-henry-walters-w658-64un-piri-reis-1004-carte-de-l-europe-de-l-ouest-et-afrique-du-nord-walters-w65864a-page-complete-image185548427.html The word is also present in Official corrependances here : https://www.cnplet.dz/images/bibliotheque/Autres/Correspondance-des-Deys-d-Alger-avec-la-Cour-de-France-Tome-1.pdf Leaving "Ottoman Algeria" as the Big title could be misleading, i'm not saying we should remove the Ottoman "Affiliation" of Algiers, but we should put a historically accurate political status as a title, like "Kingdom of Algiers", of course this has to go through a consencus. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b530120525/f1.item.zoom This French map of the Ottoman Empire in Mid 17th century gives clear distinctions between the barbary states, described as: Kingdoms and States under the protection of the Great Turk (Sultan) and other Eyalets of the Ottoman Empire. The term "Regency" might be correct, it could be wrongly interpreted with that "Ottoman Algeria" title. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

These are very old sources or primary sources, which are not representative of what current and mainstream English sources use as the WP:COMMONNAME, which would definitely be Regency of Algiers, not Kingdom. A look through most reliable English references from the last several decades would show that, as does an ngram (even when including old sources, [9]). I was even considering opening a WP:RM a while ago to recommend moving the title to "Regency of Algiers" for this reason, but I just didn't have the energy for it. (Arguably, the same is true for Ottoman Tunisia, which could just as easily be "Regency of Tunis" per the sources.) R Prazeres (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

"Regency of Algiers" as title would be perfect, it's both historical and still in use in current sources, i think it would be better if it replaces "Ottoman Algeria" as a title since this term should be understood in the right context, "Ottoman Algeria" might or might not indicate that Algiers was a geopolitical entity, which could mislead the readers, Ottoman Algeria should be understood as a period in the history of Algeria and a characteristic of the Algerian State, not as a Historical name of a region or a state in North Africa. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, in that case, I think I'll just go ahead and start the formal process of a move request (WP:RM) for that name. I had more supporting arguments in mind originally, but I'll just keep it simple and see what happens. R Prazeres (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that the proposed title is more accurate and more common. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Ottoman Algeria → Regency of Algiers – Per WP:COMMONNAME. As discused above, the current name is not wrong, but the most common designation for Ottoman Algeria in reliable English sources is "Regency of Algiers" or "Ottoman Regency of Algiers"; e.g. Abun-Nasr (p.151 and after), McDougall (p.11), Naylor (p.7 or 109), Blili. Also supported by ngram. R Prazeres (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too technical and not as recognizable to general readers. "Ottoman Algeria" is simple, clear and straightforward. No mystery or obscurity as to what the article is about. Walrasiad (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Except it’s not historically accurate, and it’s also vague and even confusing when reading the article, so it should be put in a context. Let’s call a cat a cat shall we ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  It could also mean that Algiers did not have sovereignty and was not considered a geopolitical entity, which is not what the article is about. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Just a minor procedural note: if you support or oppose the move, make sure to leave a comment at some point with the word "Support" or "Oppose" in bold. Your other comments make your position clear, of course, but doing this still makes it easier to determine consensus at the end of discussion (which will be done by a non-involved editor). Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

"Ottoman Algeria" is WP:COMMONNAME. e.g. @R Prazeres: cites Abun-Nasr, but neglects to note that Abu-Nasr uses the term "Ottoman Algeria" throughout the text (e.g. p.158). Also the chapter title in Macdougall is precisely "Ottoman Algeria" (p.9). So is Naylor's Dictionary (p.xxxviii). So the very authors cited above are happy to use it. And is commonly found in many books for general reference (e.g. Britannica Guide to Africa, Bradt travel guide, Military History of Africa, etc.). A glimpse at the usage of "Regency of Algiers" it is mostly found in specialized texts or diplomatic collections of treaties, where official names are used.

Wikipedia is written for general readers. Article titles must be recognizable when stand alone without context. Most readers will not recognize "Regency of Algiers" by itself and can easily imagine it might be the official name of French Algeria, or Almohad Algeria, or Algiers metropolitan area, or a luxury resort or hotel in Algiers, or whatever. So "Ottoman" has to be in the title. "Ottoman Regency of Algiers" is unnecessarily long, "Ottoman Algeria" is more WP:CONCISE and commonly used. There's no point making it more complicated and difficult to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a short description of it being (Autonomous Ottoman State), the Authors use Ottoman Algeria in its context not as a title or official name of the State, general readers must nit be misled. Regency of Algiers could be easily recognisable by reading the first lines of the summery or the infobox. The Title has to be Historically accurate and official. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't. See WP:OFFICIAL. Article title has to be recognizable. We want readers to find this page, with the least complications and difficulties. Exact official names, and their historical nuances, can be given in the lede text. Using it in the title in this case introduces a pointless obstacle to readers. It is detrimental rather than helpful. Walrasiad (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Regency of Algiers is recognisable enough, I’m sorry but i don’t think we should mislead people cause the word “regency” seems too technical for you. And what’s recognisable is “Ottoman period in the history of Algeria” or “Ottoman ruled Algeria”, not “Ottoman Algeria” as a title, you’re just giving vague and even wrong impressions at this point.

The history of Algeria in this period is memorable for it being a “Regency”, the article is all about that, this affiliation and autonomy of Algiers vis a vis the sublime porte is what makes Algiers a “regency” and a general reader has to understand this point. This is a history of an early modern nation state in its own right. you should respect it and respect the way it’s introduced in history books by historians. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

A general reader does not and should not "have to understand" Ottoman nomenclature in advance in order to find this article. It can be explained to him when he finds it.

As for myself, well, my knowledge is deep and vast. I know more about North African history than most people - I have written on it quite a bit. But I am not the measure, nor am I using myself as the measure. In this, as in everything I do on Wikipedia, I try to place myself in the position of a general reader, and try to do what best serves them. I want Wikipedia to be as useful as it can be. I would suggest you adopt the same approach. Walrasiad (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

“ i know more about North African history than most people”…that’s great, then you should know that Ottoman Algeria is a descriptive term that should be put in a context and not a historical name for a region or a state in North Africa, thus it’s not fit as a title of this article, things should be simple and straightforward…as you said.

And anyone who wants to find this article will have to remember that the name of this State is “Regency of Algiers” and not “Ottoman Algeria” even if he types the latter in his keyboard. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Putting things in context is what the article text is for. The article title is just about helping readers find the article. There is no reason to put up obstacles. That is not helpful, but a hindrance. "Ottoman Algeria" is recognizable, clear and used very commonly, including by all the authors above. Walrasiad (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Except it’s used in a text or paragraph regarding a clear context and not as a title for a historical State, a cat is commonly and officially called a cat..not “carnivorous feline”. Calling things by their name is not an obstacle, it’s just obvious and people are expected to call it as such.

l’m done here. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the article here is titled "cat", it's common name. Not Felis catus, its official name. Walrasiad (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Assuming Regency of Algiers was not and is still not THE common and official name of the state. (in English, French, and Arabic). i suggest you read the article and check the sources there, that would be a good start, Cheers. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I just want to gently recommend you both take a break from this particular back-and-forth, because you probably won't change each other's minds at this point, but it's taking up a lot of space. The outcome here will depend on overall consensus of editors, so let's see what other editors have to say. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Support . While the term Ottoman Algeria is not wrong, it’s still recent in history books and it should be understood in its own context, which is why it’s not fit as a title. Algiers was a State founded by independent Corsairs, the Barbarossa brothers, Hayreddin became an Ottoman Pasha along with his State 3 years after its foundation, and this state survived for 3 centuries upon the pillars of that foundation. which is why it should be named as it used to be named. The article is all about the the Ottoman Affiliation of the Algerian “State” while being totally autonomous regarding its domestic and foreign policy since the end of the Beylerbey period, and this became official by the 17th century, we’re not talking about a province like eastern Ottoman eyalets. But a geopolitical entity in its own right with a clear military doctrine, clear form of government and administration with Ottoman characteristics and religious affiliation to the Sultan. The Sovereigns of Algiers made it clear since the revolution of 1659. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Support . The actual name used in literature regarding the state, and also in nearly every wikipedia page except for english right now. Whatever748 (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Agreeing with the reasoning that everyone else has made in favour of a move. It's both more common and more precise to call it the "Regency of Algeria," even if "Ottoman Algeria" isn't technically wrong.

XTheBedrockX (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting proposal

I propose that the article, similarly to the Tunisian ones (Ottoman Tunisia, Beylik of Tunis) be split into two separate part. Following a coup in 1671, Ottoman authority was reduced to a ceremonial role, and Algiers from there on continued to be independent, or in some cases quasi-independent from the Ottoman Empire. We could also separate the article at 1710 since that's when Algiers first became De Facto independent under the rule of Baba Ali Chaouche. The new page should be called the Deylik of Algiers. I can provide further citations if needed. Whatever748 (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Not sure the Tunisia articles are a good standard, the relationship between the two is not clear from those articles. Just from impressions of the word, the term "Ottoman X" seems like a general article that would cover the entirety of the Ottoman period, whatever the level of autonomy or particular structure of the Ottoman Empire at the time. I'm also not seeing a simple split point in this article (no mention of "Deylik" at all), nor is the article particularly long, so I am unsure of the value to the reader of splitting information into several articles. CMD (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with CMD, maybe once the article is well-developed this can be revisited, but splitting the article means readers need to look in more than one place for information they might easily expect to find in one place. Most readers will look for a generic title and "Ottoman Algeria" fits that criteria for now. So even if it's academically acceptable to split things, it doesn't always serve the readers well. That said, one way to improve the encyclopedia would be to add such relevant information to this page; though I would recommend using more recent scholarly sources than the one you just cited (or use more recent secondary sources alongside it for verification). R Prazeres (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the article has been expanded, should we revisit this idea? Whatever748 (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how a split would benefit readers. The article remains only 15kb. CMD (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, splitting still doesn't make it easier on readers. One page is better than two pages in general unless it's reasonable to believe that most readers would be expecting two separate topics, which I don't think is particularly the case here. What I meant above is that pages can be split if the topic becomes difficult to manage as one page because of length and complexity; but I think that's still far off for now. That said, expanding the article is what we should be doing anyways, so your work is well-invested in the meantime. R Prazeres (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

now after more than two years since the last comment and this article has evolved a lot,so i think a revision of this proposal is very welcomed. Tayeb188 (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Considering this article is now 170+ kb of readable prose, a split is absolutely warranted at this point. XTheBedrockX (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Strongly oppose splitting into Deylik of Algiers, as there is little justification in reliable sources for turning this into two separate topics in this fashion, and doing so would make a bigger mess. The sources discuss this as one identifiable state/period, the Regency, regardless of the many changes during its history. Quite simply, this idea exists on Wikpedia, but not in WP:RS. Such an unnatural split would inevitably result in confusion, POV problems, and WP:OR; as exemplified by some of the previous attempts to do something similar (e.g. this) and by the problems with the aforementioned Beylik of Tunis article (which we've already discussed merging here).

Instead: a more straightforward solution would be to simply move information on various subtopics into existing articles and/or into new sub-articles that are more easily defined. Many of the long history sections, for example, cover topics that already have their own articles (about specific battles, wars, etc). Other sections that could be split off into new articles include the corsairs section, given that this topic is easily notable enough on its own (and would equally serve as a subtopic of Barbary pirates, similar to Salé Rovers). There are also a lot of quotes which could be condensed and paraphrased per MOS:QUOTE. We should be exhausting these options first. R Prazeres (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose The history of the Regency is understood through its political changes and revolutions which were influenced primarily by the nature of the State (Corsair-Janissary leadership) and its relations with foreign powers. Algiers was always Ottoman affiliated but by its own terms, it was very jealous of its autonomy and sovereignty while at the same time it was a de facto ottoman spearhead in the western Mediterranean. The Deylik period didn’t break the rule, it emphasised it without too much hindrance from the Porte. This military republic with its Corsair foreign policy was around for more than 300 years, and splitting its history would cause confusion.

regarding the corsairs section, it’s closely linked with the history section. The wars of Algiers cannot be understood without proper understanding of the Algerian Corso. It’s political, religious and economical importance is vital for the article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should try to preserve an overall history section covering (or summarizing) the entire period. But just in case it wasn't clear: splitting off sections doesn't mean removing them entirely from this article, it just means condensing them into a shorter version and then having another linked article where the full version is found, with some general context usually repeated there as needed (Wikipedia:Summary style). The intention is to have a main topic (this article) with detailed subtopics branching off it, rather than a sharp separation. So I believe some sections inevitably need to be split off somehow (the Corsairs is just one suggestion but there are many options), otherwise the alternative is to simply cut material. R Prazeres (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Government/political status in infobox

Just a recommendation for the political status description in the "Government" section of the infobox: I think it's gotten a little too complicated and jargon-y for the average reader. I personally know these terms, but most people don't know what Pashalik, Aghalik, Deylik, etc mean, and because these are titles imbued with different practical powers in different contexts/periods, it may not provide much immediate understanding either.

We could probably simplify this into fewer historical phases focusing on the most significant shifts, and summarize in more common English words where possible, which is more in keeping with the purpose of MOS:INFOBOX. Alternatively, of course, we could replace most of this with something like "See Political status section below", if it seems too difficult to simplify while remaining reasonably accurate. I'm open to what others think.

This part also relies a little too much on interpreting primary sources or other 19th century sources, whereas the situation is described clearly and fairly succinctly in more current secondary sources. Primary sources can still be useful for many details, but for most information we should be prioritizing what secondary sources say, per WP:PST. For example, see the brief summary I left at this discussion above about what several reliable secondary sources; they're generally in agreement about an outline of political phases that's not too hard to understand. R Prazeres (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nourerrahmane, I think that works well for now. R Prazeres (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You welcome :) Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

دولة (Dawlat) vs إيالة (Eyalat)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What exactly do you want to achieve by your nationalist editing? As i said, the official Arabic name is إيالة الجزائر ('Eyalat al-Jaza'ir'). I know that the name is of turkish origin but that doesn't mean it's not used in Arabic. All what you have to do is to check the Arabic version of the article. but if you wanted to put the official Turkish name then put it, i have no objections. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPA. Now I understand why they opened a SPI about you in the French Wikipedia. M.Bitton (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you understand and read Arabic? If yes, see the Arabic dictionary. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The Arabic version is not RS, in fact it has several mistakes and it’s poorly developed, State or دولة is as present in primary and secondary sources as the official correspondences of the Deys as well as diplomatic treaties, denying Algerian statehood is politically motivated as this was never a subject of debate among historians, Algiers was a state, it always had a high degree of autonomy and gained sovereignty in the mid 17th century, with still nominal affiliation to the Ottoman Empire. So we’re talking about a sovereign state, having an Ottoman Algerian elite or a religious affliction to the Empire nowhere denies the Statehood of the Regency of Algiers. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

And what are your sources for your nationalist name (Dawlat al-Jaza'ir)? 2 Algerian sources??? Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The official name was kingdom of Algiers, literally مملكة الجزائر، it’s all over the primary sources in the article, including diplomatic treaties with France and England, focusing on the Turkish name (which is not technically wrong) to make it sound like (there was nothing called state of Algiers) is the wrong move here.

also Algerian sources in french and Arabic are not naturally less neutral than their foreign counterparts, Keddash and Yahya Bouaziz and Nasereddin Saidouni are leading contemporary Historians and their books are reliable references regarding this period in Algerian history, in addition to other Algerian historians of course which are to be taken into account obviously.

So there is nothing “nationalist” here except the recurring vandalism from several IPs located in the same geographical location…unfortunately. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

We cannot rely only on Algerian POV here. Neutral sources are needed. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting that Algerian historians are not RS for the history of Algeria, is like suggesting that Frenchy historians are not RS for the history of France (an asinine assertion that should be ignored as such). @Nourerrahmane: Personally, I have no intention of wasting my time responding to a single purpose account who assumes bad faith and casts aspersions to boot. M.Bitton (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I didn't suggest that Algerian historians are not RS. What i suggest is to not neglect the overwhelming majority of sources (including some Algerian ones) that refer to it as إيالة الجزائر. Hope that was clear enough. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

As M.Bitton has already pointed out, personal attacks do not belong on Wikipedia. When I first received notification of this discussion being opened my first thought was to revert it and ask Pickle Rick 02 to try this again without the personal attacks. I won't do that now that others have responded. But I've removed the inappropriate identification of editors in the heading, which is gratuitous to the content of the discussion, per WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS ([10]).

As for the article content in question, the only thing that supports a change is reliable sources, so until I see those, I don't see any reason to change anything or to further respond to this thread. R Prazeres (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: Honestly I have no idea how to prove that using reliable sources. Of course i can provide some numerous ones refering to the regency as إيالة الجزائر. Would that be enough? I doubt it. As for دولة الجزائر, the sources are very rare and mostly written by Algerian historians ans honestly the first time i saw it was here in this article. What do you suggest? Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you stop socking (regardless of whose sock you are) and give your nationalist disruptive editing here and on the French wiki a rest. How does that sound? M.Bitton (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh so it's fine for you to describe my edting as nationalist while when it comes to me it becomes a personal attack. LOL.

I also suggest you don't answer to the questions that are not adressed to you. I'm not going to waste my time with pro-Algerian nationalist editors. I'm more interested in neutral ones. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely! When you assume bad faith with me, I in return, will assume the same with you and treat you like the disruptive SPA that you are. M.Bitton (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

As i said, i'm no more interested in you, neutrality is the last thing to expect from you. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, you're just trying to deny the Algerian statehood by focusing on the "Turkish" term Eyalet, however, since you speak arabic so well, i suggest you read this : https://shamela.ws/book/12320/2945

and this http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/3613_%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%AC-%D9%A6/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_60and this http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/3613_%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86-%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%AC-%D9%A6/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_309

Ibn Khaldoun uses the word "Eyalet" frequently and as you can see, he literally means "Kingdom" by that, a term found both in primary sources and official documents regarding the Regency of Algiers, both in arabic and other languages, don't beleive me ? if you understand French, then i invite you to read this treaty of 1801 between France and Algiers shown here : https://archive.org/details/traitdepaixentre00alge/page/2/mode/2up

Now please stop this edit warring, it's obvious that your arguments are politically motivated, and your personnal attacks are just another proof of that. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Our discussion is about 'Eyalat' (إيالة) vs 'Dawlat' (دولة). So why are you bringing the word 'Kingdom' here?
2. Yes, you're right إيالة can mean Kingdom or state as it can mean 'province'. It depends on the context
3. Your (or my) POV has no place here. If 'Eyalat' is the most used word for the regency then it's the one that should be putted here (regardless of its meaning).

Hope that was clear. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

So you agree it's not clear enough, that's why دولة is what should we put here supported by RS regardless the nationality of its Author (Gilbert Meynier is french), btw, it's already mentionned that Algiers was first an autonomous, then a sovereign eyalet of the Ottoman Empire, So i guess this is clear enough, both terms are used in their right context, as i already said in my first revert of your edit.

This ends here. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

We should put 'Eyalat al-Jaza'ir' (إيالة الجزائر) because it's the most used one. that's the point. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @M.Bitton @Nourerrahmane @R Prazeres

By the way, this user has an active WP:RAA since June for personal attacks on another user. The account was created solely to vandalize articles without any intention to contribute to the encyclopedia. He uses fake edits to bypass protection on articles, indicating that he is not a new member, as evidenced by his actions. It is more likely that he is an old banned user.

He has already done the same thing in the article about mint tea, where he attempted to prove that it is Moroccan. His only intention is to contribute to Algerian/Moroccan articles and forcefully promote his own perspective. His behaviours are likely to be linked with the Moorish Movement methods. Riad Salih (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: Rest assured. Since we have pro-Algeria editors here who won't rest until I'm Banned, It's almost impossible for me to spend much time here. :) Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: I want also to note that Algerian nationalism isn't better than Moroccan nationalism. Both need to be stopped. It is not good to fight nationalism with nationalism. Unfortunately that's the case here. pro-Algerian editors always have the upper hand, which is really sad for this innocent encyclopedia. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, please cease this line of discussion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a forum. I hear the problems, but if an editor is engaging in abusive behaviour, please report it to WP:ANI and provide evidence there accordingly. This talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article in accordance with Wikipedia's content policies. Nothing new has been said about this, so there should be nothing further to write here. R Prazeres (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: I think Prazeres is right. Let's move our discussion to somewhere else (and remove our comments here). I have no problem if you wanted to discuss in my own talk page. You can also report me to the administrators, as did Panam in the French Wikipedia. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: please stop the edit war and answer my questions here. Why do you prefer putting دولة instead of إيالة even if you already know that the latter is widely used in Arabic sources? Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Contributors should be aware of his problematic attitude when singling out individuals based on their country, especially when no one else has done so. Such behavior goes against WP:PA. Therefore, my message has nothing to do with a forum.

Whenever this contributor's way of contribution is criticized, he tends to point out that people are either pro-X or pro-Y. He consistently focuses on trending topics, removing references to Algeria or the Maghreb and replacing them with Morocco. He prioritizes nationalism and uses it as a basis to criticize others, all to divert attention from his way of contribution. Instead, he could start by improving the articles related to Morocco, which need more contributors. Riad Salih (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not what our discussion is about. Go and report me to administrators as did the others. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources are academic. No reason to remove them. Panam2014 (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some issues in the article

To begin, I'm sorry for any disruptions caused by me in the last days. I've spent the last 7 days reading Wikipedia core policies and now I can say I have a general idea of how Wikipedia works.

There seems to be some problems in the lead section and in the infobox:

1. Use of primary sources in the lead section:

The lead section is supposed to be a concise summary of the content of the article. The use of primary sources in the lead, usually dating back to the 19th century, doesn't fit with Wikipedia policies. Worse than that the sources seem to be cherry-picked, and even more concerning, misrepresented.

2. The maps:

The maps shown in the infobox derive from primary sources, and they contain factual inaccuracies. For instance, the depiction of the Tafilalt region as part of the regency is erroneous. Furthermore, certain maps, such as the one found on the French Wikipedia, erroneously suggest that the regency borders the Atlantic Ocean, which is clearly nonsensical. Fortunately, we have reliable secondary modern sources that provide reliable historical maps. E.g Atals of Islamic history (Page 68) and أطلس تاريخ الإسلام

I will highlight some other issues once this thread comes to a conclusion. Cheers, Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I can see that you spent the last 7 days trying to blame others for your misconduct. That is certainly not a sign of being sorry for your unjustified personal attacks. M.Bitton (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton, if you want to discuss personal problems, You're welcome to my talk page. This thread is about the content of the article. Please let's stick to the subject. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You should have thought about that before personally attacking me on this talk page. You even continued to mention me on your talk page (when I completely forgotten about you). M.Bitton (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

So, even after a consensus was made, you still at this again ? anyways

I invite you to check the lead section and read the sources again, 19th century sources are well supported by academic secondary sources as mentionned in the last discussion and even more were added recently, but it seems you don't care much about contributing positively. you're forcefully trying to impose your narrative by trying to deny Algerian statehood (as you were trying to do in french wikipedia and got SPIed for that), your WP:ABF is all over the place.

regarding the maps, there are over 5 historical maps, assuming they are wrong is the same as assuming that all maps dating from that period are wrong, however they all show the maximum extent of the regency, since the tribes in that region were considered "Siba" which often were dissidents to the alaouite and often showed alliegence to the Dey of Algiers or were under the dominion of the Algerian vassal tribe "Awlad sidi cheick" , more proof on how precise those maps is the fact that before 1813 the border between the two states of Algiers and morocco is the moulouya river, after that date you have the city of oujda and oued tafna seperating them, as the sources mention.

So all in all, your politicaly motivated objections to the article and your recent behaviour exposes your WP:ABF, again, you're in no place to consider any source as : "doesn't fit with Wikipedia policies. Worse than that the sources seem to be cherry-picked, and even more concerning, misrepresented." you rejected sources from well known historians such as de Grammount or Garrot and literally said that Algerian historians such as "Keddash" as not neutral while ignoring the rest. You don't seem to have a clue on what the Regency of Algiers is. which is petty. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pickle Rick 02 Since you're a map expert then i invite you to check this one out , maybe i'll add it or maybe not since there are over 4 maps in the article already [11] Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This map is, just like the others, derived from a primary source. Futhermore, it's unclear. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

you should WP:AGF. This applies to me as well, so I'm sorry for calling you nationalists.

Regarding the lead section, i wasn't talking only about those which are about the political status, but also about the ones that are meant to support the borders and the geography of the regency.To be more clear, i was referring to this passage:

the Regency originally extended its borders from the Mellegue river in the east[30][31] to Moulouya river in the west[32][33] and from Collo to Ouargla,[32][33] and had nominal authority over the Tuat[34][35] as well as the country south of In Salah[36] in the south. Towards the end of the Regency, it extended to the present eastern and western borders of Algeria.[37] Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Your past and current contributions don't allow me to WP:AGF about you, sorry, the geography of the regency is supported by well sourced materials and these are accounts of US consuls in Algiers in addition to 20th century academic sources, more of those sources are found in the "Maghrebi wars subsection" you should check them.

The map i showed you is very clear and very precise, the borders are also clear enough (it's a high res map you can't miss that). Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If there is high quality secondary sources. Then it's alright! They should replace the primary ones. And also, it's not about resolution, it's about reliability. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Good luck proving the maps are not reliable then. first you were against the term "State" regarding Algiers, then you moved to primary and secondary sources and now you seem concerned with the maps, i think this discussion is going nowhere.

@M.Bitton I'm no longer wasting my time with this. i think we should stick to the consensus and put an end to this back and forth. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I will start an WP:RFC regarding the Arabic name later. Waiting for responses from other editors. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Have you read/checked the sources or not? Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton I see that you're ignoring my question. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to discuss unsubstantiated assertions that are made by others or respond to silly questions. Don't ping me (this talk page is in my watchlist). M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You can't revert someone's edit and run away like that. My question wasn't silly, I was serious. The first source is clearly presenting French colonial POV, You must have noticed that. Not to mention that both sources are primary ones (dating back to the 19th century). And none of them suggest that "the Regency of Algiers had nominal authority over the Tuat region". Unless i missed something, if so, please give the exact quote from the sources. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I sure can ignore the baseless assertions. In any case, I'm not the only editor who's involved in this discussion, so wait and see what Nourerrahmane has to say about your serious accusations of "cherry picking" and "source misrepresentation". M.Bitton (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the sources in question. Therefore, my conclusion is that you either don't want to take responsibility for your revert and are passing the responsibility to another editor, or you may simply want to waste time. This seems to me like a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources : [12] p 91 :"Before 1830, the Touatiens paid tax to the dey of Algiers. We understand that during the Algerian wars, this tax ceased to be paid, but it remains an indication of our rights over these regions, since our power replaced that of the former deys."

[13] p 848-849 : "However, in a moment of fear, the peaceful Tuatians thought that to avoid conquest they would act prudently by requesting the protectorate of France and paying taxes to it as before to the dey."

Pickle, The sources explicitly attest of an actual authority of Algiers over the Tuat region and the french saw themselves as inheirtors of the Dey's dominion, so there is neither cherry picking, nor misinterpretation. I think i'm fed up with your accusations and hampering of the article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You are neither a historian nor an expert. You clearly haven't read the source correctly. The fact that you interpret paying taxes as nominal authority means that you're engaging in WP:OR. But that was a secondary point, the sources are primary ones and certainly not neutral, the French were aiming to control Tuat but they needed excuses. They are presenting French colonial propaganda and you must have noticed that too. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I won't even bother myself to respond to that...

but here's two more academic sources for you :

1st source : Les oasis du Gourara (Sahara algérien)(in French) (1999) [14]:

"To return to Gourara, we can wonder about the reasons for this expedition of the Turks of Algiers into the Touat ? A.G.P. Martin notes that in 1578 "... an expedition, organized by the tribes of the country of Tafilelt, came to ravage the Touat... All the notables of the Oases gathered and decided to implore the intervention of the dey of Algiers. The latter immediately wrote threatening letters to the nomads and sent a Turkish expedition, which arrived in Touat the following year; it established itself in the ruins of Tibechrine, from where it sent detachments to reconnoiter in all the Oases , then, shortly after, it left for the North without leaving anyone behind." (1927: 35). As we can see, the force to which the Ksourians of Touat-Gourara call to protect them from the abuses committed by the nomads coming from Tafilalt is the bey of Algiers. Tlemcen being annexed to the Regency of Algiers, the "oasis notables" know perfectly well which authority to contact. This is the first time that the Turks of Algiers have moved so deep into the Sahara south of Tlemcen."

2nd source : The Attic Trip To The Touat Region - Two Parts(in Arabic) (2005) [15] :

Shiek Mohamed Bey speaks about the conflicts between the Regency of Algiers, the people of Touat and the Saadi dynasty quoting on some occasions Abd el-Aziz al-Fishtali a prominent minister in the Saadi government of the time.1557,1578,1582,1583 & 1589 on many occasions the Saadis attempted to take control of the Touat failing on some occasions and succeeding in 1583 but the locals would overthrow Saadi rule as soon as they had the occasion (1589 Moroccan defeat inflicted by the locals).

Remember the expedition of Salah Rais in 1552 in Ourgla in the Sahara ? ( I doubt that ). Well the ruler of Touat Shiek Omar Ibn Abd-el Rahman was related to the Sultan of Ourgla/Touggourt (he was his brother), the objective of Salah Rais' expedition was to assure of the Regencies' authority over Touggourt and all of the domains depending of the sultanate, including Touat. The author affirms that the region depended of the "Kingdom of Algiers" than of the Saadi dynasty (page54)

In October 1557 an Algerian army was sent to Touat against Mohamed El-Chiek, ruler of Morocco at the time in order to lift the blockade imposed by Mohamed, decisively defeating his army and lifting the siege off the region.

In 1578 an army corps of the Regency was sent to help the inhabitants of Touat once again against the Saadis , this army corps did not return to Algiers until it had completed its mission and sent "a written warning to the assailants".

In 1788, the Bey of Constantine, Salah Bey launched an expedition against the city of Ain Salah because they had refused to pay tribute, since this expedition the city was named in his honor".

Again, please don't waste my time. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton @Nourerrahmane,

he was banned from all Maghreb articles in the French Wikipedia because it is clear that his intention of creating an account was solely to have a militant attitude in Algerian articles. The same thing happened with Ziri_Ibn_Attia when he always wanted to restart the discussion.

He starts a never-ending forum discussion. He uses the same approach as Special:Contributions/Omar-Toons, who is banned on all Wikipedia versions. Riad Salih (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

And he is clearly not a new contributor but an old banned user, trying to divert attention by claiming to have spent 7 days reading Wikipedia policies. Maybe he should also read this page: Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia#Being here to build an encyclopedia and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Riad Salih (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih: Your intervention here is completely disruptive. You've been already warned by Prazeres previously. You could have come to my talk and discuss this subject, not here. Or You could have reported me to admins, or you already know that the admins here, unlike French Wikipedia, are more practical and fair? Anyway, rest assured. I expect myself to be blocked in a few days, as I can see clearly a lot of editors, for no valid reasons, are not comfortable with my existence here. And they will take advantage od my past mistakes to see me blocked.Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Riad Salih and Nourerrahmane: Indeed, they do remind me of Omar-toons, especially now that they started following me to other articles and leaving comments for blocked disruptive editors. M.Bitton (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You both failed to WP:AGF. M.Bitton I don't follow you, I know @Gofté Moorish from French Wikipedia. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Your canvassing of other socks (on their talk pages and now here) is clearly disruptive beyond the pale. @Drmies: could you please have a look at this? Many thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously that wasn't canvassing. I didn't invite WikiNational0 to any discussion, nor did I influence any editor. All what i did is givig useful advices to him. Again, you failed to WP:AGF. M.Bitton, honestly you're being diruptive right now. Your inputs here doesn't align with the the subject of the discussion. Please take it elsewhere. If this discussion continued like that I might simply start a new one. Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: I didn't answer you yesterday as I was quite worried with yesterday's earthquake.

Here are some facts: The Tuat region was part of the Moroccan Bilad-es-Siba, and before the French conquest of Algeria, the region was Nominally Moroccan. See page 23 and 24 here and the map in page 68 of Atlas of Islamic history suggests the exact same thing. Even your primary source says: "Le sultan du Maroc; déjà suzerain spirituel du Touat", btw that was the reason why I said that you were cherry-picking, and i stand by what i said. Not to mention that your sources are primary, and even worse that that, non-neutral as they're presenting French colonial POV. (The French were aiming to control Tuat and they had to find excuses for that). Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

1. Never said the Moroccans didn’t exert spiritual authority in the touat region, i just presented sources that in fact don’t contradict your source. The Algerians had their authority there first in 1557 under Salah rais to repel Saadi invasion. The saadis invaded in 1591 and had an unstable rule there until 1604. as your source mention. Later the alaouites ruled there as spiritual leaders from around the early 18th century until 1796, as your source mention, when authority passed to the regency of Algiers represented by actual tribute payment and represented accurately by historical maps and by my sources. - That map dates for after 1880 and not prior. As it is supported by contemporary maps of that period and not prior. The fact that the touat region was a disputed territory doesn’t mean Algerians didn’t rule there and doesn’t mean that 4 of my sources are not neutral. They don’t even contradict your source. So much WP:Neutral from you… Since Algiers did exert authority there then it had to be mentioned. Especially if it did it first and peacefully since it was part of the Zayyanid kingdom of tlemcen before, unlike the Moroccan invasion years later. As shown by my two academic sources.
2. Your political bias is clearly showing with your accusations again, in fact this article is not about Moroccan authority over the touat, it’s about Algeria. You’re trying to hamper this article to push your narrative and you’re pinging the editors here and wasting our time. It’s time for you to leave.

Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Nourerrahmane look, even though you're assuming bad faith on me (actually I don't care), I appreciate one thing on you. It's the fact you, unlike the others, are adressing the subject and not running away. However, I don't think we'll reach consensus like that as your interpretation of the sources is an obvious WP:OR. You probably didn't even correctly read the sources that I cited. In any case, I think we need the opinion of another editor, for this reason i will mention Prazeres.

@R Prazeres: Please, if you don't mind, give us your feedback. What do you think about the issues I raised here and Nourerrahmane's responses? Cheers, Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: please ignore the disruptive SPA. I'm awaiting the response from the admin before deciding what to do next (most likely a trip to ANI). M.Bitton (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate what other editors should do. It's up to him. If he refuses to answer then i don't mind. But I know that you know that the article contains a lot of issues.

Look I invite you to keep personal problems away, let's collaborate instead. (It's up to you) Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I don't collaborate with single purpose accounts and block evading socks who personally attack me from the start. M.Bitton (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

As i said to Nourerrahmane, I don't care if you assumed bad faith on me. And again, It's up to you. If you wanted to take it to WP:ANI, I don't mind it. Cheers, Pickle Rick ✌️ (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

SPA has been shown the way to the exit. Canterbury Tail talk 02:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Algiers...First modern Islamic Republic in the world ?

looking at this source [16] 125-148, one might wonder if Algiers could actually be considered as such, didn't knew that Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu spoke about the government of the Regency. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there are any grounds to declare that in Wikipedia's voice, and "Islamic Republic" is a very loaded term in today's political context. The comparison could be mentioned in passing as a commentary of certain authors, so long as it respects WP:WEIGHT. The author there also is discussing these comments critically, not as a full endorsement of that term's application, so the same example should be followed, if it warrants inclusion. R Prazeres (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, there is a general agreement that Algiers was a Republic, however how can we deny the fact that no modern islamic state preceded it in this form of governement ? and i agree with you regarding the term "Islamic Republic" regarding today's politics. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a republic in a limited sense ("military republic" as you worded it in the article seems appropriate); whether other Islamic polities did or did not have something similar before it is something that only secondary reliable sources can say, as always. We don't have the freedom (as Wikipedia editors) to draw our own conclusions. R Prazeres (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you think any of this passage deserves mentionning as a source or quote in the infobox or a subsection in the article ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Leave it out of the infobox. It could be mentioned in the relevant subsection of the "Political status". I think a short and paraphrased summary (rather than a quote) about how the regime was perceived by others at the time seems best to me, given the discussions above about article length. R Prazeres (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Totally forgot about the length of the article, in that case i think i"ll just skip this matter or maybe i'll add it as a secondary source to the the "political status" or "administration" subsection. Thanks Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I made some wording revisions, mostly superficial, some for a slightly more neutral/clearer tone ([17]). Otherwise, a good and interesting addition, thanks. R Prazeres (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Hi, while some contemporary authors described Algiers as a republic, the Regency did recognize itself as a Republic in official correspondances with foreign monarchs who did recognise Algiers as such, is this worth mentionning ? these are some examples: [18] p 92 as an example (Dey mezzomorto (1684), Dey chaban (1691) in p 340-342 and [19] Louis 14 to Dey Ali Chaouch (1711) in p 72-73.

Speaking of the word kingdom, it has the same meaning as the word Regency regarding Algiers and has the same meanig with the Word Eyalet: Ottoman Kingdom of Algiers, Ottoman Regency of Algiers, and Ottoman Eyalet of Algiers, (Eyalet literally means Kingdom in arabic and was used by ibn Khaldoun) the term "Regency" refers to the Imperial State as Lemnouar said [20] however, this same author was mistaken when he rejected Al-madani's "Algerian Ottoman Republic" under the pretext that the Regency's officials never called their state "Republic", which is false. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I would not mention it as such, no, because the foreword of that publication states that this correspondence was translated into French by the French court's secretaries. So we're in no position to say what the original Arabic wording was. Again, we are venturing into WP:OR territory; it is not our job here to be historians by researching primary sources ourselves and drawing out new conclusions. The article's content should really be coming from reliable secondary sources, and the more WP:EXCEPTIONAL the claim, the more careful and well-sourced it should be. There's also plenty of information as is, it's up to readers to look up the references further if they want. R Prazeres (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that the political status of Algiers is understandable enough to common readers ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't re-read the entire section recently, so I can't speak to that for now. If you mean the part about the republic status that we discussed, yes I think it's clear. R Prazeres (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

So i have checked two hand written treaties: one with France in 1694 (In ottoman turkish) and the other with portugal in 1813 (In standart Arabic). the Deys refers to the Regency of Algiers simply by the word "Dawlat" (State) and "Eyalet" (Eyalet) interchangeably, and to themselves as "Doulatli" in Ottoman Turkish and "Sahib Al-Dawlah" in Arabic translated as "Head of State". So in the end it's safe to say that some contemporary Authors referred to Algiers as "Republic" as stated in the RS. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)