Talk:Regency of Algiers

Referencing checklist

Let's try this: if you have verified that references in a given section are verified and don't paraphrase too closely, check and cross off the section name below then sign I have done two sections I have finished below. If you do find a problem, or need language help, start a list item under "Houston we have a problem" or a separate section if you prefer. Elinruby (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Checklist worksheet

• 1 History
• 1.1 Establishment (1516–1533)
• 1.1.1

Spanish expansion in the Maghreb (Making a start scope_creep^Talk 15:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC))

Seems ok so far apart from reference 15, seems to be wrong. Vol 2 starts at p695 and vol 1 at p93 is talking about Castallan sheep. The arabicref is very wishy-washy but accurate, no far no close paraphrasing. scope_creep^Talk 16:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No paraphrasing. Ref 16 covers a lot of space for one page in Abun-Nasr. The sentence need split with a couple of other refs, to illustrate effects. scope_creep^Talk 16:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

2 more citations were added, Ref 15 replaced. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll check these when I finish next section tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 00:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That is fine. Well-written. Your need a ref for sentence that begins "This allowed the Spaniards to control the"

scope_creep^Talk 08:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Y This is done. The analysis on this excellent. scope_creep^Talk 09:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• 1.1.2 Barbarossa brothers arrive (Making a start [User:scope_creep|scope_creep]]^Talk 08:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC))

Its well-written and no paraphrasing. Two things

• I can't find the 1512 date.

Hess 61 covers 1512. Just noticed this is already checked, so collapsing with very minor ce Elinruby (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• I can't find the idea that hundreds of spanish soldiers were captured.

I'll check these again after do the above. scope_creep^Talk 08:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Al jilali ref p 38, says 600 prisoners but I put hundreds to avoid contradiction with other refs. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably the translation software is mispresenting the number. I don't know arabic. I tried it in bing, google and deepl and they report 6 prisoners, so it may wrongly translated. scope_creep^Talk 14:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Y This is done. Checked earlier. scope_creep^Talk 21:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• 1.1.3 New masters of Algiers (Making a start scope_creep^Talk 08:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC))

• This sentence "The occupation of Bougie" is enormous and needs split with refs added.

I shaved it down a bit. Also changed "forsook" to "swore to forsake" Elinruby (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I checked this yesterday with the helpdesk. There is nothing in the WP:MOS about sentence length, but needs to succint. The GA editor will check it and if needs, it will get done then. If its smaller, it should be better. scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

,,:Ibroke it into three sentences and edited for flow Elinruby (talk) 08:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oruç set out at the head of 5,000 Kabyles sentence needs a ref. scope_creep^Talk 09:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• Qara Hassan isn't mentioned in these refs. scope_creep^Talk 09:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 35 is a barest of mention, of the spaniards being defeated and leaving. I would take it out. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hopefully all those points were answered. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no close paraphrasing and its well-written. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• That is checked and completed. Y scope_creep^Talk 10:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• 1.1.4 Campaign of Tlemcen: Death of Oruç (Making a start scope_creep^Talk 14:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC))

No paraphrasing and its well written. One point:

• On "Then they laid siege to Tlmecen" The siege last 6 months and the text gives the impression it was a few days.

I changed this to "then they began a six-month siege of Tlemcen" Elinruby (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Apart from that its perfect. scope_creep^Talk 15:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• That is checked and completed. Y scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• 1.1.5 Algiers joins the Ottoman Empire

• Ref 45 doesn't seem to hit the mark at all. Hugo 2014 seems to be discussing woments p.224 The sentence is also huge with multiple events. scope_creep^Talk 15:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

So Hugo is gone, meaning all subsequent numbers will be +1. I have another source;looking at Vatin. Elinruby (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

distant and so close to Spain quite perilous is unreferenced and neither of the sources I looked at mentions worried about Spain, but rather Rhodes and Egypt.Elinruby (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Vatin states it was October 1519 when it went under Ottoman control. They is no closure on the journey, which needs to be there. p.155. Add the date in. scope_creep^Talk 15:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• I see the Merouche I have is volume I. I'll get volume II, but Hugo is still problematic. scope_creep^Talk 15:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• It states that Algiers the spearhead when Panzac states it was Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli were the spearhead. It is minor.

That section is fine, apart from that long sentence which needs referenced better and Hugo seemingly wrong, unless its the wrong edition/year and no mention when became a Ottomon estate. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• That is checked and completed. Y scope_creep^Talk 10:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• 1.1.5.1 Reconquest of Algiers

• You need a (source vary) in here as one ref shows five year and another 7 tell the reader the sources don't agree. scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 51 needs updated with a volume number. scope_creep^Talk 16:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is done Y. scope_creep^Talk 10:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

arbitrary break

• Ref 52 Holt. Is Khayr al-Din Heyridden? seems to be as both books mention "beylerbey". scope_creep^Talk 16:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• The question of different names for Barabarossa is going to confuse the reviewer and the reader. A single name, the most common name should be chosen to make the text clear. It might be worth putting a note in explaining to the reader. In Holt he is called "Khayr al Din". That is three names. There is an article Khair ad-Din which means "the goodness of the faith". Barbarossa is mention. Maybe worth linking putting note in right enough. scope_creep^Talk 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

not convinced we should link to a disambiguation page. I agree that it's an issue however; N and I had a long confusing conversation on the talk page about this before we got that straight. I gather it is something completely obvious like Tricky Dick for Americans or who the Virgin Queen or the Iron Lady were. I am trying to built a Rosetta Stone further down the page. Probably the answer is either a note or a parenthesis. But I keep finding more like this. Elinruby (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• This "Taking advantage of the corsairs' reputation as "holy warriors" and social divisions between urban and rural populations, he bolstered his ranks with Andalusi refugees and local tribesmen" is not mentioned in Ref 52. scope_creep^Talk 16:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• "but at Iflissen had to face a detachment sent by Belkadi" is not in Ref 53 scope_creep^Talk 17:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 59 doesn't say he attached the island, just that the port was modernised. Close-in, close to shore islands were often connected to mainland when they're tidal river was filled in. It was common practice (from working on another article) as it gave them positions to place guns far out in the harbour It would be worth trying to find a reference for it, as he and the ottomans seems to have ushered in a golden age of trade. scope_creep^Talk 21:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• That is much better. Description of the causeway, single name for Heyridden and Hess mentions the holy warriors and Cambridge history of islam mentions the refugees and there would be local tribesman. That is an excellent analysis again. That's it done. Y

• 1.1.5.2 Morisco rescue missions (Making a start on 1.1.5 scope_creep^Talk 14:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC))

• This question of rescuing 70000 refugees is dubious. It seems to calculated number, post calculated which is not WP practice on Ref 61. Post calculation is never used. You need a more accurate reference, its too woolly and inaccurate. It mentions shuttling seven times so could be used to ref the closing of the sentenced which isn't reffed. scope_creep^Talk 09:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Settling in the city at Tagarin isn't reffed. scope_creep^Talk 09:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 61 does mention building houses. Ref 61 is covering the above sentence. Thats fine. So the question of 70k refugees. scope_creep^Talk 10:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not too bothered about the 70k figure. The Tagarin term is covered. That's it done. Y

• 1.1.6 Hayreddin's successors (1534–1580) (Making a start on 1.1.6 scope_creep^Talk 10:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC))

• "The capture of the Peñon had a huge impact". Introduces impact but doesn't explain what it is. scope_creep^Talk 15:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• "And thus" has no logical follow through. There is no reason for it to there. That para needs rewritten to explain the impact and why holy war followed. The ref is good. scope_creep^Talk 15:29, 21 March 2024

No paraphrasing the previous chapter. I think its a red herring. scope_creep^Talk 16:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• That's it done. Y

• 1.1.6.1 Algerian expansion

• Ref 66 is wide. It looks like p.151. Can you check it. scope_creep^Talk 15:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• "It ended in total disaster". Doesn't explain why was a disaster. Crowley covers it. It needs some details why. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• ref 69: p.27 Spencer doesn't verify. It seems to p.24-26. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• "another massive". I would replace that as doesn't mean anything. I would put the numbers in 300 ships, 30000 men. (That is massive, but it meaningless in the modern context. It could mean anything. ) scope_creep^Talk 16:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Abun-nasr pp=154-155 puts the number even bigger at 500 ships and more marines. I'd put another ref in there and put as (sources vary) on it. The sources vary is standard WP way per consensus of show variance in sources. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 71 doesn't talk about Martín Alonso Fernández. He did lead it and its accurate. Needs a newer ref.
• There was three expeditions. Only two are mentioned. scope_creep^Talk 16:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 72 doesn't have the volume number. scope_creep^Talk 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• The sentence beginning "In 1552, Salah Rais" I can't verify it. However, from the Tuggurt Expedition (1552) is seems to be true, but Ref 74 doesn't mention it and I can't access Gaid 1978. I would perhaps reformat the sentence to link to the Tuggurt article and find better ref, unless there is some confusion in the naming. Salah Rais seems to be quite clear. scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Tuggurt Expedition (1552) is linked already. Ignore that. If Gaid 1978, then ignore the previous comment. scope_creep^Talk 18:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That is well-written and no paraphrasing. The whole thing is a red herring. scope_creep^Talk 18:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Julian 1970 p.294-295 has good deatails on Salah Rais. It might be able to verify "In 1552, Salah Rais" scope_creep^Talk 08:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Had a look at this. The sources is in as the numbers are indeterminate. I haven't identified ref 72 but I will check from date this comment. I'll do it now. The section is clearer now and easier to read with additional references and has some detail on Salah Rais which wasn't there before. Checked this. Ref 72 doesn' have a volume. The section is more than twice the size now. That is done and checked Y scope_creep^Talk 12:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• 1.1.6.2 War against the Spanish-Moroccan Alliance

• Algerian-Sharifian conflicts shaped the western border of Algeria. Odd sentence. Mentions geopolitical changes in the source. Could it be rewritten. Ref 90 good. scope_creep^Talk 08:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 92 volume is missing from ref and editors were Fage and Oliver. It needs a chapter as well. I don't mind doing it. scope_creep^Talk 08:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Y
• Ref 91 doesn't provide the detail in that sentence. It is very ropey. Better ref needed. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 92 needs publisher, location and so. I'll do this. scope_creep^Talk 16:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• "Mulay Ahmad III was forced to take refuge in the Spanish presidio of La Goleta" isn't mentioned in Truxillo. Needs a ref. scope_creep^Talk 16:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 97 I thought would verify Caïd Ramdan. He was defo pasha of Algiers but not byerbli. I got the Hugh Robert book, same edition, doesn't mention it on p.175. scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• On the sentence that begins "In 1578 an army corps of the" Ref 91 doesn't validate it. It does mention him writing on the sand and being copied letter for letter but the language isn't clear. What army corps is it? They is no make up of it, what it was composed it. There has to be a better ref than this Arabic one. The language is so wooly to be incomprehensible. scope_creep^Talk 17:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• It might be worth mentioning Eulj Ali, who was the grand admiral of the ottoman fleet in the sentence "his was followed by a cancelled". He was sent to attack then but cancelled. Julian p.301. I can't find an article but its odd the name is not there. scope_creep^Talk 17:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Cory states p.9 "Rajab 989/August 1581 As a result of al-Hawzālī’s meeting with Sultan Murād III, invasion of Morocco by Kapudan Pasha `Ulūj `Alῑ is cancelled. Ottoman treaty signed with Morocco protects Moroccan autonomy". So that could be rewritten to explain it better. scope_creep^Talk 17:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thay is well researched and no paraphrasing. It needs some work but can be expedited. scope_creep^Talk 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That section is done. I've checked the referenced and the rewording at the end para is much better and clearer with a bigger section, more explanation. This is done.Y scope_creep^Talk 13:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

1.2 Golden Age

• 1.2 17th century: Golden Age of Algiers (Making a start scope_creep^Talk 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC))

• "Once they adopted the use of round-bottomed vessels" Doesn't explain why they grew powerful. Braudel has the description there. Just needs one or two sentences to explain why. scope_creep^Talk 19:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The first para of Jameison p.75 explains it exactly. Use that if possible and the ref is already there. scope_creep^Talk 19:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It was complete new ships and ways of sailing for the lot. So major change need more I think. scope_creep^Talk 19:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• "pirate economy of forced exchange and paid protection for the safety of crews, cargo and ships at sea". Needs reworded. Copied verbatim. scope_creep^Talk 19:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Nourerrahmane: I've updated that section to mention square-rigged sailing ships which was the core innovation that changed the whole approach to coarsairing in the early 1600's, enabling them to breach the Atlantic. Can you check its ok, wording and so on. scope_creep^Talk 17:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• That section is checked an done. Y [[User:scope_creep|scope_creep hat^Talk 17:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

1.2.1 Ottoman suzerainty weakens

(Making a start scope_creep^Talk 19:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC))

• You'll need a ref for "In 1536, France signed". Its not mentioned in MacDougall. scope_creep^Talk 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• " In clear defiance of the". You'll need a date for the attack on the Bastion. scope_creep^Talk 15:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 122 doesn't verify the fact that 6000 sequins were captured. scope_creep^Talk 16:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• That section beginning "The authority of the pashas that but according to Meyerson it is the 1570's. I couldn't verify Ref 120 and 121. They were definently freed from ottoman control but what group it was insn't mentioned in Meyerson. I can't see Kaddache. scope_creep^Talk 16:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

What I meant to say was there was no dates in that section. It looks like the 1570's from Meyerson. scope_creep^Talk 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"The Seizing 6,000 sequins is verified Garrot p.444 but the sentence itself hasn't got a conclusion. "Seizing 6000 to compensate". Right they siezed 6000 then what. That needs fixed. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• The last para has only date and doesn't mention when the new pasha comes in. There is a lack of dates in whole section. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Its seems to be accurate with no paraphrasing. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• That has been updated with references and more dates with gives it depth. Garrot is used for 6k sequins which is accurate. Thats it done and checked.Y scope_creep^Talk 17:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

starts with Ali Bitchin

• 1.2.1.1 Ali Bitchin Raïs
• 1.2.2 Foreign policy
• 1.2.2.1 Kingdom of France'
  • Unexplained Reference to Coral fishermen FIXeD
• 1.2.2.2 Kingdom of England
  • ref 138 (Matar); supports the attacks at the bottom of p.150. The outcome however, presumably on 151, is not part of the preview
  • 127 verified, no paraphrase
  • 139 timing out
  • 140,141, 142, 143, 144 ok

(What happened to 145) Elinruby (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom of England

• ref 138 (Matar); supports the attacks at the bottom of p.150. The outcome however, presumably on 151, is not part of the preview
• 127 verified, no paraphrase
• 139 timing out
• 140,141, 142, 143, 144 ok

Elinruby (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC) (What happened to 145)

@Elinruby and @Scope creep Thanks for all this work, i realise how difficult and complex this article is through your suggestions. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Dutch Republic

• 146, 148 snippet, cannot confirm
• 147 - copyvio from this source now addressed

• 151 (Wolf): ok both times
• 157, 155 ok no paraphrase
• 158 Jamieson not in preview
• 160 same as 147, with or without page numbers is the question. Document is open-access OAP, great source with no page numbers. Check against this for further copy vio, although that section has had a detailed rewrite since I spotted this. Could do with another look though. Elinruby (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• 1.3 Maghrebi wars (1678–1756)

*1.3.1 Tunisian campaigns

• Some sentences unreferenced
• Kaddache
• spahi was linked to sipahi. I think it should be sipahi and changed it, because the spahi were in the French Army. Noting here in case I am wrong Elinruby (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• (all good)ref 186 Panzac 300 verifies the olive oil, not the tribute though
• But that's ok, since Ref 185 on the same sentence verifies the tribute but not the oil. Source is snippets only, but this comes up for a search on "Tunis" Elinruby (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 184 verifies 1756 Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Refs 182, 183: My snippet search was unsuccessful for 183, but 182 fully verified the sentence. Paraphrase was not very close but I did a slight rewrite to be on the safe side. None of the above were even slightly close Elinruby (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: I like your changes to the Tunisian campaigns section very much. A couple of quibbles, and they are that, very minor:

• If the horizontal image is #1 in the template and a vertical image follows, on mobile devices it is on top of the vertical image in a T shape that seems wrong, especially if the vertical image is a person; then it looks like they have a naval battle over their head. That's not the case here, but that is why I have commented about this a couple times.
• I had to re-read this sentence a couple of times: "Dey Chabane took this opportunity to defeat Tunis in the Battle of Kef, conquer it and depose Mohamed Bey El Mouradi in 1694..." I see now that he won the battle and took over the country, then defeated Mohamed. But on a first fast read "defeat" and "conquer" seem like synonyms, although I see now that they are not, in this sentence. I think avoiding the use of the pronoun "it" might help. I did a minor copyedit but I think given your grasp of the facts you are better equipped to reword that than me. A small problem, maybe 1.5 out of 10, but one that it would be nice to fix.

break to praise our SME

PS: I thought you handled the stuff about Mohammed exactly right and the other editor was being rather unreasonable. "Prophet" wasn't even capitalized and the article is chock-full of people named Mohammed. Saying "the prophet Mohammed" the way it was is a description not a title, distinguishing him from all of the other Mohammeds that we refer to. Feel free to ask for help if he shows up again. The way you have this right now is verbatim from policy. I just think the way it was before was okay also, but I suppose they were making the point that not everyone believes he was a prophet, eyeroll. Elinruby (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

===another break for mutual admiration==+ @Nourerrahmane: Your a cracking editor to work with. scope_creep^Talk 17:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC) that's a compliment if you were wondering Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• continuing the theme: I see a vast amount of patience going into this article. hurray for you both Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both of you ! i didn't need to google translate :) Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll start working on the refs in the sections you covered shortly. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Morocco

• 1.3.2 Moroccan campaigns
• 1.4 Dey Muhammad ben Othman Pasha (1766–1792)
• 1.4.1 Pacification of the Regency
• 1.4.2 War with Denmark working... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• 1.4.3 War with Spain

• War with Spain: the top picture in the gallery is of Danish ships. Should that be under War with Denmark? Elinruby (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• I added those pictures for the entire section, maybe a third picture would make it clearer ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Maybe! I am going backwards in time so I might be missing something. But Scope creep seems to say that we don't need to worry about too many pictures, and he follows policies quite closely. I personally think they are good. I think my answer is that if it isn't hard go ahead and add it. We can always take it back out. And if was about French ships (that's the section above Denmark I think?), then yeah that might be clearer. If it's not that easy right now, then wait and see what Scope has to say, is my thought. I was just noting my confusion.Elinruby (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• (Finally done) War with Spain still: What's this stuff about a presidency? Presidio maybe? This might be machine translation edited by bots. Also, seemed like Oran got Algiers back in a treaty then there were anti-pirate expeditions, then negotiations, then suddenly Oran is Spanish. Re-read and double check what happened there.Elinruby (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Decline of Algiers (1800–1830)

• 1.5.1 Algerian Jewish merchants working... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• 1.5.2 Crisis of the 19th century working... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• First para is good. Altered slightly to join it up, as its all one event.
• Sentence beginning "In 1792 in Constantine popular administrator of the eastern Beylik Saleh Bey was killed" seems to hang. The 1814 block is seperate and the sentence beginning in 1792 should be seperate para. But it looks muddled as your in 1814 then its 1792. If Beylik Saleh Bey is related to the discussion on the wars, which is discussed in the next paragraph (should it not be in that para>) then I would put in something, "In a series of events that began in 1972 with the death of Beylik Saleh Bey... It looks muddled at the moment.
• Sourcing is fine. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  I reworked it with few hopefully useful additions. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  I beleive i have covered all of your suggestions, so i'll be waiting for another review. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• 1.5.3 Y Barbary Wars Elinruby (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  (fixed)but see Greenwich Museums subsection under Scope Creep validation Elinruby (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

• 1.5.4 Y French invasion Elinruby (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• 2 Political status - now highly rewritten. Davidann reference was copied; one sentence only, but word for word. Julien supports the quote but had a (trivial) difference in wording, Modified article to match. For the other two references the cited page is not within the preview. Heavy rewording in this section, however, confident no close paraphrase remains Elinruby (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• 2

This is fine and checked. Y scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• 2.1 1516: State of Algiers established (Making a start from here. scope_creep^Talk 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC))

This is fine and checked. Y scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• 2.1.1 Oruç's government
• 2.1.2 Hayreddin's consolidation

• Rewrote a small para. Needs checked. scope_creep^Talk 11:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 253 mentions nothing about elections. scope_creep^Talk 12:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• I can't verify Ref 254, or 255. I've got the books and can't see it. scope_creep^Talk 12:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• I can't verify Ref 256 either. scope_creep^Talk 12:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

For 254 it is there but only for mayor, whereas the article text says qadis, muftis and mayors. The source mentions mayors the goes on to talk about guild leaders and some other non-religious officials. I have just realized that I am uncertain how to add a quote in this type of citation but down towards the bottom of p.54 the source says: Algiers had its own mayor and city council (hakam), positions which were held by non-Turks as a holdover from the original pact woth Baba Aruj..." I changed it to just say mayor but that feels lonely so I am going to add and city council also per the source. If Nourerrahmane wants muftis and qadis he can add them when he has a source Elinruby (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• 2.2 Ottoman Viceroyalty of Algiers (1519–1659)
• 2.2.1 Corsair kings: Beylerbeylik period (1519–1587)
• Ref 258 seems to have the wrong page number. It is volume 6 which starts from page 579. scope_creep^Talk 12:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• This will need a ref "Even though they acknowledged the suzerainty of the sultan, the beylerbeys were autonomous, however"
• This will need a ref "The "timar" system was not applied in Algiers". scope_creep^Talk 13:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• 2.2.2 Triennial mandate: Pashalik period (1587–1659)

• Need a date for this: "Aversion to the Sublime Porte increased in..." Or a period, e.g Around the mid-16th century... or so. Its introduced out the blue with no context. scope_creep^Talk 15:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• 2.3 Sovereign Military Republic of Algiers (1659–1830)
• 2.3.1 Janissary revolution: Agha regime in 1659

• No context on "Ibrahim Pasha pocketed", just begin without an intro. Needs a date and some kind of intro scope_creep^Talk 16:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Can "Khalil Agha" be linked? scope_creep^Talk 17:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I tried pretty hard. I just double-checked fr.wikipedia and it is a redlink there too. Elinruby (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) However Odjak of Algiers (mostly N) says he was Khalil Bouloukbashi.

Never mind! N reminded me further down the page that Bouloukbashi is a title, and informed me that he held it before he was Agha.Elinruby (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 285 doesn't validate that sentence, although the sentence is accurate. I looked at the 2000 edition of the book and 2012 and its not in it. scope_creep^Talk 09:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• This is going to need a date, "The raïs had risen up and killed Dey Mohamed Ben Hassan" scope_creep^Talk 10:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Just noticed that Mohammed Trik states he's algerian but the article states he's an old Dutch disgraced raïs. scope_creep^Talk 10:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Also noticed that Dey (maternal uncle) and Doulateli (head of state) and Hakem are not linked. There is a wiki dictionary for [1] and a fr article for [2]. I wonder if we can link the wikt defition for Hakem using the wikt template. Looking Doulateli. scope_creep^Talk 10:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
• Also noticed diwan has an definition at wikt: [3]. Its mentioned near the top of the article before its discussed in the dîwân council section much futher down so needs linked early. The wikt definition is ideal. scope_creep^Talk 11:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(trying) divan Elinruby (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

[4] is more confusing than not. [5] and come to think of it didn't I see that you link to it? Will double check 20:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Deylik period (1671–1830)

looks like this got omitted somehow from the checklist. There is a really really really close paraphrase of the Abun-Nasr reference at the top of the section. Noting because I will need a moment to figure out how to fix it. The first sentence is referenced to Wolf. The second is cited ti Abun-Nasr p.160 but the link goes to 157; probably because it says 160 is not part of the preview, but if you scroll up and down you can see it. The paraphrase is way too close. I think I can rework the second part but slightly stuck on the first. Elinruby (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

this is done, both parts, but both of you should check it. I am going to be sleepless over the fact that we are still finding this stuff. I think I will google some randome chunks of text for funsies. On the other hand, to be clear, this is text that was being worked on for the first time. 21:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Administration

• 3 Administration
• 3.1 Algerian stratocratic government
  • Malcolm (currently 310) does according to snippets contain the words ""despotic, military-aristocratic republic" but I can't verify that he was talking about Algiers and honestly I think if what we want is an example of somebody calling the Dey of Algiers a despot, I don't think we should use Montesquieu, because he was apparently wish-washy on whether or it was an aristocracy or a republic. And he thought all monarchs were despots. This was really Laugier de Tassy's idea according to the source, and he is impenetrable. Elinruby (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Shaler(note f) is verified) Elinruby (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)tclear
  • 311 first use - does say that Jean-Baptiste de Boyer, Marquis d'Argens said this. Why not quote him directly though? Also it isn't clear whether he thinks this is a good thing. 311 second use is misleading. Gibbons says that all military governments do this.
  • Coller (currently 312) first use anbout Rousseau is verified User:Elinruby Elinruby (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well the source mentions "Barbary States" and Algiers is the closest of them to a republic, regarding the "despotic Dey" i will add few small quotes by Saidouni and Julien to give a better idea of what the Dey was in that regard. he's already mentioned as a constitutionnal aurocrat. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• hang on, let me finish the section first or we will have edit conflicts and both get frustrated. Also I have suggestions. These people are considered important to the French revolution and all lived under autocrats remember. And yes, no quest he was an autocrat. Was there a constitution in the American sense of the word? Elinruby (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well there is this: [6]

Yeah, that looks a lot like a constitution. We should be talking about this. Did you see what I said somewhere else about Laugier de Tassy btw? Also, one of the sources I have been looking at -- pretty sure it is one of yours --- was talking about "constitutional". Let me see if I can find that and also the one about the Agha supposedly bathing in blood. that Pacte should definitely be in the article. Nour. Write that up. Let me see if I can find those links. 15:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• and I thought about making the dey section look a bit like this :

  According to French historian Charles-André Julien, the dey of Algiers was head of an elective but absolute monarchy as a de-facto constitutional autocrat, He was in charge of the enforcement of civil and military laws, delivering justice, ensuring internal security, generating necessary revenues, organizing and providing regular pay for the troops and assuring correspondences with the tribes. But his power was still limited by the corso captains and the diwan of the janissaries, since any member of either body could aspire to become dey. His fortune came from his civil list that didn't exceed that of the highest paid member of the janissaries, and although he could still receive presents from consuls, beys and shares from privateer booty, his fortune reverted back to the public treasury in the event of assassination, This led some authors to call the dey a "despot without liberty", a "king of slaves and slave of his subjects", and a "man of wealth without being able to master his treasures". Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't dare hating your edit lol Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Nonono If there is something you hate you should tell me. We have to agree, we are all three good at different things. And all of us losing our minds over this article lol. This is the guy who talks about bathing in Blood, but we should think about this. Several people say that Lettres Persanes was about Algiers but I am not seeing it, and it could be me. Anyway: [7] Let me go look up who he was, and try again for that constitutional discussion in one of these sources. Oh and check out how you do references on a talk page. Elinruby (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Take a look a thompson 116 [8]: does mention a constitution. And these aristocrats talking did not like it Elinruby (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, and Hamdan Khodja also speaks about a constitution or a charter [9] and fundamental laws in pp 124-125 [10] Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm here... Comparing

I like it. The quotes make it livelier. A couple of words need fixing. "Correspondances" means "things that are the same" in English. Relations maybe? Let me do a quick copy edit on the things I do understand. I will make a copy of this first in case you hate my edit, lol 15:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

References

I think there was a better discussion but i can't find it tight now. Anything I find before I fall asleep I will post here. if you are doing rewrites here I am going to turn to seeing what other loose ends I can tie up Elinruby (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• 3.1.1 Dey of Algiers

• Khoja (317) no preview,

• 3.1.2 Cabinetn
• 3.1.3 Diwan council
• 3.2 Territorial management

Economy

• 4 Economy
• 4.1 Algerian slave ransom economy
• 4.2 Mandatory royalties and gifts
• 4.3 Taxation
• 4.4 Agriculture – claimed: Mathglot (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• 4.5 Manufacturing and craftsmanship working... ​ Elinruby (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Making a start on checking this and forward. scope_creep^Talk 14:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Djidjel needs linked. Can't located it. scope_creep^Talk 14:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

aha is that where that was. I realized later it is probably Djidjeli. I will go look right now. Elinruby (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Aha there are some language variants going on here. Now spelled Jijel. And yes appparently it is surrounded by Oak forest. @Nourerrahmane: I think Djidjeli is the old name so I am going to link it to Jijel, tell me if I am right about that, and Scope, that is the thing to do, right? or actually, it's a redirect, I don't have to. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right, just like with Bone and Bougi, common names are preferable. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Can't see Kaddache and can't locate any information for Hassan-Bey 2022 from gbooks even when signed in. The gbook reference doesn't have page numbers, so for the read will fail WP:V even assuming by AGF that the references are good. Ruedy is a only a single sentence and is ok. scope_creep^Talk 15:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That is done. I see Djidjeli is gone. That is fine. If it couldn't be linked at this time. Kudos for finding Jijel, although I see its used further up the article. Solid work. Section seems to be clearer and better written now. Y scope_creep^Talk 07:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• 4.6 Trade

"roads were suitable for vehicles" Sound weird. When vehicles are mentioned, it assumed to be a cars. Carts are mentioned in previous sentence. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

yeah I couldn't think of a way to reword that at the time --if one comes to mind, feel free. I think given the period we are saying that it was not a goat path Elinruby (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reworded it slightly to get rid of two "mainlys" in the same sentence and included the carts on road to get rid of vehicles. Also changed shipped to delivered, since assumed if coming by sea it will be by ship. Its better worth checking. Y

Society

• 5 Society

Making a start. scope_creep^Talk 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• 5.1 Urban population workingElinruby (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Around 10,000 Turks. Figure is not mentioned in Isichei. It is actually p. 273. changed. scope_creep^Talk 16:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 351 Ruedy 1997 is about plowing and doesn't mention "99% of the population". The actual ref mention Ruedy 2005 where the link is to Ruedy 1992. Mind you they are actually both published in 1927, so this will need looked at. Can't locate it. scope_creep^Talk 17:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• "restaurants, hotels, and shops" Can't locate this anywhere in Ruedy, unless across several pages. scope_creep^Talk 17:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not published in 1927, the version on archive.org is 1992. I need to the 2005 version. The ref still needs fixed to not point to the correct 2005 dated citation. scope_creep^Talk 17:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Got the 2005 Rudy. So will check that block again. scope_creep^Talk 17:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Checked the block. Ref 351 is inaccurate on Ruedy 2005. scope_creep^Talk 17:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Ref 366 is fine. scope_creep^Talk 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The city closed its gates at nightfall and observed Islamic holidays" doesn't have a ref. scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• The ref for "Café Tlemçani, Café El Fouara, Café Gourari and Café Larriche." has been removed which was in there on 16th April. scope_creep^Talk 06:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That section is finished. Shame about the coffeehouses, but all ref'd to hassin bey scrap. Good order.Y scope_creep^Talk 20:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• 5.2 Social formations workingElinruby (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Making a start. scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Siba needs linked. scope_creep^Talk 17:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Efn tag since no link scope_creep^Talk 17:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

May be linked to Bled es-Siba. Google states from a removed wikipedia entry that its "There were tribes that refused the sultan's authority and taxes, in areas known as Bilād as-Siba" scope_creep^Talk 09:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• The Ruedy ref on archive.org is the 1992 edition, not the 2nd edition from 2005. The ref needs updated to reflect its 2005. Its almost identical. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• The para beginning "Central authority" It probably needs rewritten as it took four or five reads over 2 days to understand it. Its fundamentally, centralised legistative control enabled tribal growth/cohension by controlled access to markets via middlemen. Consolidation may be the wrong work. I'm saying its wrong. It doesn't mean "the action or process of combining a number of things into a single more effective or coherent whole." which is accurate in the context, but in the modern sense its a word more known for use in discussion in a commercial environement. Thinking about it may be actually accurate for the context. But for all that, its a difficult para to read and it wouldn't meet FA. Its needs twice the space to describe it. The refs are ok on it. Vatin 1982 is really good. A solid academic analysis. The tribe article is junk unfortunately. There could be tribes of north africa, and summarise it here. Not needed for GA at the moment, though. scope_creep^Talk 12:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• to the village framework. Should that not be "to the city framework". scope_creep^Talk 12:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• That is done. Its much easier to understand, laid out better and checks fine. Y scope_creep^Talk 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• 5.3 Aristocratic castes

As far as I know all this is deal with, but it should be checked. Getting the other section also Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Aristocratic castes: is "tribal dust" just saying that this is an ancient social structure? (moved from earlier three-item question) Elinruby (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC) - Yes, pre colonial maghreb was tribal to the core, but in the Ottoman period, the tribes started affiliating themselves with "the country of Algiers" or Watan al Djaza'ir. on tribes I am, I think, grasping the point about centralization. But why is "dust" there? .Maybe I just need to look at the sentence in the source. I think it is just saying that this was an ancient social structure? Elinruby (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC) didn't grasp it as much as I thought, thanks for discussion below Elinruby (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"Tribal dust" is a term used by the cited author, it 7 tribes didn't care about central authority and cared more about their own strength. This was a response to 19th century French authors who claimed that, since Algerian soceity was mostlly tribal, we cannot speak about the existance of an "Algerian people". French authors in that period often wanted to disregard the role of the Algerian tribes in the administration and politics of Ottoman Algeria. The point was to make the Ottoman elite completely seperated from the population, and that would paint the Ottomans as conquerors and usurpers rather than an Algerian elite that although it kept its Ottoman character, it still seperated itself from the imperial core in istanbul and posed itself as an Algerian central authority that derived its legitmacy from Jihad against christian powers and garenteer of National unity in a sence, as if it was a warrior aristocracy, which is why many Ottoman Algerians married to the tribes to ensure their loyalty to the center and organise internal administration and levy of taxes. Thus, the colonial theory was proved wrong by more recent scholarly Algerian and western sources. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"Dust" refers to what colonial authors wanted point out as "tribal anarchy", they were opposed to words like heritage or traditions as this would imply a historical background for the Algerian people, something the French opposed to the point of destroying many historical sites including the lower qasba in Algiers for example. French authorities stripped lands from Algerian tribes and imposed the civil code on what they called "The indiginous pupulations" (The didn't recognize the existance of an Algerian people), Thus cutting tribal ties and seperating members of the same tribe from each other, giving them new family names based on their looks or their job, without giving them French citizenship however. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's sarcasm, "Tribal anarchy" would fit better for understanding i beleive, you see it's a sensitive subject regarding Algerian French relations to this day, French president Macron caused a diplomatic crisis in 2021 when he questionned if there ever was an Algerian nation or people before colonisation. This colonial issue is all rooted in this claim. And don't worry, you have done a lot of good work in this article that i couldn't hope to acheive myself, so thank you for that. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Did some additions in society section, hopefully they are clear ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

looking now. I hadn't heard about Macron. But based on what I do (did?) know, there is (was?) plenty to be sensitive about, so don't apologize. And listen, all these incremental changes I am making do, I believe, improve the article, but it's a really substantial piece of work, and very important IMHO. It portrays a living breathing culture and not just the cartoonish propaganda about US Marines in Tripoli, which is what, if anything, most Americans are going to know about the period. As you've noticed, I am also doing a fast run through some of the related articles and I am seeing a lot of work by you in those also. So. Somebody noticed what you are doing, just so you know. Elinruby (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I see. An important point then. I am not going to take it out. But why dust as opposed to heritage or traditions?

So it's sarcasm? Because correct me if I am wrong and maybe this is what I am not understanding, isn't this author Algerian not French? People may just have to click on the reference. But meantime I gather that this is important, don't worry about that, if you are. Also, I may speak French and not Arabic but I am no apologist for the French colonial government and have previously discussed with someone the parallels between the Western betrayal of Eastern Europe and what the French did in Africa and North Africa. fairly substantive change here to wording but not I think to meaning, trying to bring out the loyalty to the country I think you are talking about. I see the stuff about marabouts and I think it is good. Previously you could tell they were important but not so much how. I did just go through the articles about marabouts that are linked in the lede. This is a good example of material that will be very new to most English speakers though, so there may be questions. In fact -- you say oasis. I think there is more than one, though, right? Changing to oases plural unless you stop me. Going through Society section again from the top. I think infantilization is a feature of most colonialism and not limited to Algeria. But it's Algeria we are talking about, and I think I understand better. Merouche does not have a preview on Google Books though. If you are taking long-term suggestions, I have seem people add pages to the Internet Archive. I would have trouble doing that from here, but if you are in a city or have access to a scanner, it's a thought. Elinruby (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, i will check for sure, Merouche' study is valuable. As always yhe changes you made are most welcome and allow for better readability, yes marabouts are important, they were a sort of internal legitimacy for the Ottoman elite, in exchange they had a cut in the corsair spoils and many previledges. And yes there is more than one oasis since the awlad sidi cheik ruled over large chunk of the Sahara. As for the Siba tribes, yes are rebellious or at least unsubordinate to central authority. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Making a start. scope_creep^Talk 12:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• You have a MOS:SANDWITCH problem here. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• On the bullet points. I would put a reference in for the definition of the each aristo class, e.g. djouads. The reason for this, becuase the ref on bullet for the descriptive text not the definition. On Yacono 1993, "djouads" is described in page 5.
• Yacono 1993 has a Gallica archive page. scope_creep^Talk 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This is section is good. scope_creep^Talk 13:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

aristocratic castes

1. in the djouads [fr] warrior aristocrats bullet point, I added "for example the !!Mokrani]] of Beni Abbas" @Nourerrahmane: can you please reality check that and if possible source it. I am getting this from French wikipedia, and as we agreed elsewhere, the French have some strange ideas about Algeria.
2. Just above that I changed "douads families" to "douad families". I am assuming that at some point this was a translation of "familles douad(e?)s". If so, adjectives of plural nouns do not take an s in English so I changed it to "douad families", but now I need to know if this is a name or a description. Is there something like a Douad Tribal Council or is this a loanword from Arabic that just means "people" or "nomads" or "fierce warriors", for example? Isn't cross-cultural communication fun?
3. Sharif and chérifien [fr] have mostly been used so far in this article with respect to a ruling dynasty of Morocco, I believe. Is this really a tribal confederacy that the dynasty belonged to? My main concern here is briefly explaining to alert readers who wonder about this how the ones we are talking about are Algerian not Moroccan, and again, sourcing this if at all possible.

marabouts is neither sourced nor explained on this list and I am currently afraid to attempt this, lol

1. is the word "caste" used correctly in the header? I don't have a problem with it if you are certain that this is either the word an anthropologist would use or better yet the way they themselves would describe this affiliation. I only question it because in English it is most frequently seen afaik with respect to India. That doesn't make using it another way wrong as long as it is based in sources. Whee. LMk,no special rush. Elinruby (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Elin I’m going to the mountain today with family, dunno if there is internet connection there, so I might or might not be available Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

np going to need a break myself real soon. I dreamed about this article last night. Have fun. Pings still mean I think it needs you but we just won't necessarily expect immediate answers Elinruby (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Got some internet here, so i reworked that section a bit, hopefully it's better explained this way, for title i would replace it with "Aristocracy" or "Tribal Aristocracy" only. Djouads means strongmen. So Djouad tribes means stong families or warrior familiy led tribes. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok so it is not a name, it is an adjective, and castes should go, got it. I will take care of that. (actually tessalation but not really tiles, I think in retrospect, but we both liked this image, and it is used in the article. I just realized that the photos I added to urban populations are of the same door from different angles, so I am going to remove the one that is jist tbe door. I am thinking of adding this image to architecture. The Ketchaoua Mosque dome inside down view.jpg as it helps.explaim the tile thing, which does seem important but i am struggling to express. Do what you can with the pings. I am about to resume a copy edit. Elinruby (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2024

I like this picture a lot, and it was a good idea to show the dome from the inside, because even though Ketchawa mosque is an iconic building of the regency period, it did't look like its current status. Nicely done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

ha I think part was accidental, but I agree, it's not just Algiers but Ottoman Algiers.(UTC) Although isn't this mosque in the Turkish tradition and therefore the minaret is round not octagonal? (UTC)In any event I said tiled, but I meant that other word I just leaned about the honeycomb vaulting (in the notes section I think) but that isn't that either, is it. Anyway, it's got a lot of visual appeal and it's Ottoman architecture in Algiers, so I was pretty sure it was ok to add.(UTC) (UTC)Nice work on Tribal aristocracy. I did a copy edit. There were some assumptions, so double check me please.(UTC) I haven't checked the references yet (UTC)but am otherwise really happy with that section, assuming it passed your review of course ;) Elinruby (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! i did check it and everything essential is there and well written. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)(UTC)

Culture

• 6 Culture claimed...~~​~~
• 6.1 Education

• Making a start. scope_creep^Talk 13:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• The last para in culture should really be in education.
• Abi-Mershed 2010 has really good descriptive text on schools and could be used to ref the first sentence of second para beginning "Secondary and tertiary education". scope_creep^Talk 13:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• You need a ref for that second part of 2nd para. If it is famous you need a name. scope_creep^Talk 13:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That is all bog standard and is well written. scope_creep^Talk 13:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• 6.2 Architecture

• Making a start. scope_creep^Talk 13:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• It states "A radical change occurred in artistic taste" when did this occur? scope_creep^Talk 15:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• "decorated interior walls and floors, forming bands, patterns and frames around doors, windows, and entrances. They were also used on door jambs, window frames and balusters" Needs ref'd. p.19 Laʻraj 1990 only covers the 3 types of tiles. Possibly expand the page range. scope_creep^Talk 16:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• "Seafront fortifications" sentence needs split. scope_creep^Talk 18:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That section is well-written. scope_creep^Talk 18:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• 6.3 Arts
• 6.3.1 Crafts
  • Hot mess, straight translation from source only somewhat remedied
    • The rug section is rewritten, need someone to tell me if it is clear and correct Elinruby (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Any suggestions about zellij would be welcome Elinruby (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• 6.3.2 Music
  • Wilson reference has some sort of mistake Elinruby (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• 7 Legacy

Elinruby (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

|}

Checklist discussion

stale discussion of checklist procedure

I will start working on this tommorrow. I should have the refs done by then. scope_creepTalk 16:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC) No problem. I have substantial work done in the Culture section but I blew all my referencing fuses on the Crafts section, which did have some straight translation, probably too much, and some unusual words that might be hits with the right software. Not ready to sign off on all the references. Right now just doing copy-edit and can I understand it. In War with Spain and moving up. What are you doing with references, just making sure they work, or verifying them or checking for paraphrasjng too? My main request in terms of not duplicating work is that the Crafts section be left to me, since it's actually quite difficult to find sources for 18th century Algerian lace and door knockers, and I have some possibilities open. Unless Nourerrahmane has something in Arabic? I have about an hour, maybe two and right now am just doing a slightly aggressive copy-edit that is, I think, improving things and may or may not be taking out any paraphrasing that may or may not exist along the way. Elinruby (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC) Making sure they are valid, but not verifying them yet. We will do the section above when we check for paraphrasing. If they are not properly formatted it is a GA fail. scope_creepTalk 17:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC) @Elinruby:, @Nourerrahmane: That is the bib section examined and updated. Now for 1.1 Establishment. scope_creepTalk 09:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Checklist looks great; I collapsed it and added subsection headers, to make it easier to just edit what you want. Btw, to avoid duplicate effort, if you're about to start work on some section(s), I would mark it working... ~~​~~ or claimed...~~​~~ or some such, to avoid duplication; then switch it to Y or done or whatever when you're done. I claimed agriculture. Mathglot (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC) good idea. I will mark some claimed in a minute here.Elinruby (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Clarifying: just the four tildes, not the wikicode underlying my 10:43 17 march post with the embedded zero-width space, because that inserts tildes into the list, not sigs. If you uncollapse the § Checklist worksheet and look at section 1.4, you'll see what I mean. Just drop all the {{zwsp}}, and it will be fine. Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

1.1.5

it was 1525 and not 1527

I adressed the issues listed, i think Hayreddin should be replaced with Khayr ad-Din in this article because the article for that figure says Hayreddin while the sources i have mention Khayr ad-Din, what do you seggest ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Or i would add also known as "Khayr ad-Din" Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) The 1527 date is taken from the Heyreddin article referenced to Roberts. scope_creepTalk 17:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) I don't have access to Roberts source anymore infortunately, and Julien, Kaddache, Hess, and Cambridge history of islam all indicate 1525 date. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) @Nourerrahmane: In that case it might be worth putting a note stating that Robert stated it 1527 and using the ref from the Hayreddin aerticle. Also it might be worth checking there is redirects in for the names to the Hayreddin article. scope_creepTalk 21:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Actually Robert stated 1525, i now have access to the book and i cited it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Coolio. Did you put a (sources vary) next to it? scope_creepTalk 21:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC) No, because i donno about any source that says Algiers was retaken by Barbarossa in 1527. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

More was added concerning the port of Algiers Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

i saw the stuff about the breakwater, looks good Elinruby (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Y 1525 vs 1527 redux
on 1525 vs 1527, this was a good thing to straighten out. Do I understand that it's now 1525 and that's what sources say? Hurray. Can I collapse this thread? Elinruby (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Yes it's 1525 per all sources Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Algerian-Sharifian conflicts

Morocco kept seizing Oran, and that changed the western border of Algeria. ;Sharifian used like this generally means Sharifian dynasty, but there were various sultans, warlords, emirs that are within the realm of possibility. "Fighting frequently changed the border with Morocco" with some indication of the timeframe, is my current best effort. That's why I was asking about Oran though: I am not sure when that place was built. Elinruby (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oran was built in the 10th century, by berber or Andalusians, it later became an important port during the 14th 15th century, in the Ottoman period it was occupied by the spanish until 1791, when it was captured by the Ottoman Algerians. Morocco (Sharifian dynasty) never seized Oran. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

ok.The border fighting with Morocco did not include Oran. Oran was part of the Regency after 1791. Before that it was occupied by the Spanish. Have I got that right? This is relevant with respect to images of the palace in Oran and whether they are representative of Ottoman architecture. I think I mean to type "palace" btw but I am pretty sure it was built before 1791.

same question for Tlemcen. I realize it is very old. Was it part of the Regency at some point? Also Bejaïa/Bougie. Within the scope? Elinruby (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes you're right

Tlemcen was part of the Regency since 1556, it was in the middle of the Algerian Moroccan conflicts, as the Saadi dynasty kept attacking it. Bejaia became part of the Regency after it was taken from the Spanish in 1556 also. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Bejaïa and Tlemcen both since 1556, right. Thank you Elinruby (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviews

@Nourerrahmane:, how are you getting on with updating those fixes on the 2nd block of the review I did. I guess the 3rd block won't be done yet. I'll start check the "Crisis of the 19th century" today. scope_creep^Talk 10:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

i'll finish Society today, hopefully the social structureis much more understandable. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll have quick look at it over the remains of the weekend. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

source

The population revolted in Blida, the Hodna and Issers, in some oases of the south and Al-Nammasha in the Aurès.

Unable to verify. Would love for some one to show this to me. Alternately another source?

References

You did good to remove it, i think its not a very important information knowing that there were rebellions in Kabylia that the dey ended. Also i noticed that i did a lot of mistakes in spelling when i did those additions, so i'll make sure to check out all your modifications so i can avoid wasting your time with these mistakes in the futureJus.

Not sure i understand your point, my spelling could be worked on though i think the article is mostly finished by now, i'm working mostly on refs that Scope is mentionning, and i'm not in a hurry, this might take a while and i do it in my freetime since i enjoy working on this article and if you feel better stepping away then so be it, GL to you. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Update checks

I've got the rest of today free so plan to check the 2nd tranche of updates I did to see if they are done. I had a look at the "Crisis in the 19th century" section. Refs were ok. One para may need work. I've left comments in the checklist section as per. scope_creep^Talk 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Take an look especially at quotes, still finding fresh problems with those Elinruby (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I see the image alt tags are really well written now. They are excellent. scope_creep^Talk 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Quotes

I'm re-checking quotes to make sure they are identical with the sources, especially Arabic and French ones. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

good idea Elinruby (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

PRG

Hi @Elinruby: @Nourerrahmane: How much more work are planing to do to the article? The reason I ask I think it fairly complete now. I think its the law of diminishing returns now. I was wondering if we can submit it to WP:PRG this week and perhap schedule a copyedit. I have an editor in mind, Polygnotus, who might not mind doing a run through on it. What do you think? scope_creep^Talk 08:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

depends on whether Nour is done. I see some copy editing that could be done, but I don't think I have to be the person who does it. But let's respect Polygnotus' time, hmm? I also think we should do Mathglot's Earwhig hack. It was suggested for good reason; apparently some past editor had trouble with the concept. Bottom line, good idea, when Nour is done rewriting. Fresh eyes would be good. Elinruby (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello i think i'm done rewriting, i'm still not sure about that long de Grammont quote in Legacy section though. Hopefully i have fixed the issue with quotes and i'll sure give it another check. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

please do because that would be a serious problem and it would be embarrassing for someone else to find it. Same with copy vio. Elinruby (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You're good to go Scope, it's okay for me if there are still some mistakes, since i have worked on this the best i can. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: @Nourerrahmane: That is the whole point of external review to surface any work, to spot anything that needs fixed. I do know it will take some time before it kicks off; it could be a week, it could a month or longer. There is a fair sized queue there. If we can do the Mathglot Earwig hack first and then kick of PRG and see what happens. Put it in on Saturday, give a couple of days to do the Earwig report. scope_creep^Talk 16:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Nour, what are you unsure about with the de Grammont quote? If it is length, then that is not necessarily a problem as long as the quoted material is important. And exact, but you have been checking for that, right? Elinruby (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It was about length but if it’s important and descriptive enough of the general 19th century view of Algiers then I’ll leave it. And yes I have been checking for this and other quotes to make sure they are accurate and identical to what’s in RS. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Elinruby: @Nourerrahmane: I'm going to submit it for WP:PRG now. scope_creep^Talk 07:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

-- scope_creep^Talk 07:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thats it added. A bot will post it to the list in an hour or two. scope_creep^Talk 08:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks scope ! Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

PRG Returns

@Nourerrahmane:, @Elinruby: A reviewer @Z1720: has left a set of comments we need to have a look at. scope_creep^Talk 08:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello scope, regarding the feedback I guess we can work on everything he listed except reducing the article to 9000 words, according to WP:articlesize, the article should probably be trimmed unless the scope of the article justifies otherwise. The current state of the article gives a comprehensive look about the regency of Algiers, i just cannot agree to remove what’s already summarised. Everything in the article is an important element in the regency history. Up to him to decide what’s not that important so we can discuss it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think you should expand and then split into two main periods. No trimming on what is an extremely wide period of history. scope_creep^Talk 15:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@R Prazeres was against a split, since in fact the regency remained the same entity for 300 years with little modifications in its political system and foreign policy and even its relations with Constantinople unlike Muradid and Husainid Tunisia and Saadi then Alawi Morocco. The Regency history should be understood within the transformation of the Ottoman Empire as a military governed Imperial state that gradually broke loose from the Ottoman Empire because of divergent external intrests, without renoucing its formal affiliation to the latter. Splitting may confuse regular readers and make them beleive there are two seperated states when in fact it's the same autonomous military governement (Odjak of Algiers) that characterised the over 300 years old Ottoman Algeria.

That is why i beleive this is the best we can do regarding trimming and summarizing the article, we just cannot ignore the slave economy of Algiers, its government composition, relations with constantinople, foreign policy, wars in breif, soceity (urban and rural), culture, and the different views of specialized historians about it. Since this period of Algerian history was subject of many misconseptions. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we should preserve some unity on the matter. One possibility that's radical but also fairly simple and common would be to transfer the large "History" section into a new History of the Regency of Algiers article; similar to what already exists, among other examples, for the Ottoman Empire (History of the Ottoman Empire) and to what we are currently implementing for the Mamluk Sultanate (History of the Mamluk Sultanate) due to similar concerns. That would mean condensing the history section here, but preserving all the work done so far in one still-unified history article that would be linked in a hatnote at the top of the section. R Prazeres (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Condensing the history section to a maximum and include it in Political status section ? that seems like a possible solution. This also means i can expand the history section (Article) a bit... I like this option. @Scope creep @Elinruby @Riad Salih @Mathglot @M.Bitton what do you guys think ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Minor clarification: to preserve clarity for readers, you still keep a "History" section in this option, but just condensed and linking to the full version in another article. Whether we should potentially also include the "Political status" section in this process could be discussed (e.g. you could choose to copy some of it into the new history article too, in order to provide the full context there as well). R Prazeres (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, i was thinking about this possibility, since both these sections are linked in this article, the Beylerbey period corresponds with the wars against Spain and Morocco, the Pashalik period is linked with Algerian opposition to the Capitualtions traties and the Franco-Ottoman Alliance,resulting in the weakness of the Pasha (Ottoman regent) and the rise of the military elites to power. The Agha and Dey periods are linked to the wars against France, England and the Dutch and the Maghrebi wars before stabilized relations were established. The decline of Algiers in the late period might need a paragraph about the political decay of Algiers in the History Article.

The history section here will be like a summary for the History Article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This is very standard procedure at articles that grow to this size, and have subtopics that are easily worth an article on their own. Please see WP:Summary style for a description of this, and some recommendations of how to proceed. There are standard terms such as WP:G#Parent article and WP:G#Child article that’s are used for this. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)