Talk:Regency of Algiers

@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)

I think splitting off the history section is the natural move and putting back summary blocks here to cover the main points of the history. I think it will be quite a substantial series of paragraphs, as 300 years to summarise but fixes the problem. It does seem the logical move with some scope to expand. scope_creep^Talk 09:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Nourerrahmane has gone ahead and created Draft:History of the Regency of Algiers. I'm getting the sense that there we are indeed all leaning towards this option? R Prazeres (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

And I agree with Scope Creep; the summary can still be substantial in order to be fair to the topic, but as long as it's comparatively much shorter, I think it'll go a long way to reducing article size. R Prazeres (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Summary is done. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Please check the peer review for the additional changes Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

"check the peer review..." — link? Mathglot (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Peer review/Regency of Algiers/archive1 Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Nourerrahmane: Are you planning to make a start on creating a summary of 300 years of history. scope_creep^Talk 18:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Scope, i started doing this today, i'm planning to pix history and poltical status period, and how history itself influanced political status in short sentences. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Why are you moving the political status to the new article? M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the political section needs to be moved. You need the history in its own article with the summary of history here to link with main article links, perhaps subsections links but nothing more than that. scope_creep^Talk 20:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine, thought i could merge the two sections here and summarize them, but i'll just summarize the history section alone, could use some help though. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It might leave this a bit empty. When Elinruby comes back, she might end up doing some of it. I'm up for it. scope_creep^Talk 23:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

OK! I should have looked here first before I wrote those questions on your talk page ;) so disregard those, and let me do some reading and catch up. At this time will be doing essential copyedits only. Elinruby (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright I did a fast pass through the History section. I did a little more than the strictly essential as I also got some repetition and awkward structure, but I stuck to doing the English only because I am not sure Nour is done. Overall summary is very good. I kind of agree that it could be combined with the political status section but only if he wants to do that in which case I will be happy to come back through. If not, I don't particularly want to rejuggle all that in my head at the moment, definitely not tonight anyway, and it sounds like there is some disagreement about whether to do it. I left comments about some content issues in the edit summaries. My biggest concern is that we have words that English speakers will find controversial in quotes -- "holy war" and "renegade" for example -- but unattributed. Please make super double extra sure that those exact words appear in the sources that follow them. If not they would be what we call scare quotes and we don't do that. If they are not in the source, they don't exactly need to be if they are not in quotes -- it is the quotes that say they are in the sources -- but as mentioned, english speakers may question them, so they should be attributed the way you did with "nest of pirates". Does that make sense? If not feel free to ask a question, Nour, this is really important for you to understand. I will check back in a day or two. Going to go tie up some other loose ends right now.

And by the way, you did a really good job on that summary. I am pretty sure I could not have done it so well after being down at the granular level for so long. Elinruby (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a ton of references that are no longer used. I'll take then out today. Excellent copyedit. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The History of the Regency of Algiers has now been reviewed by myself and is now in mainspace. It needs categories first. It also needs some on refs again. I'll do that this afterrnon. We will need to decide what we are doing with these further reading sections in both articles. Whether we do the work to put them into the article, probably ideal for FA or remove if they are not in use, or superceeded by another ref(s). scope_creep^Talk 11:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I added a few categories. I am sure the effort can be refined but at least it won't get tagged for that now. Please feel free to rework as seems good Elinruby (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Elinruby, I'm glad you're back, this article reached its current status thanks to your massive contribution, also, i'm sorry for sabotaging your work and the misinderstanding that happenned afterwards, since i was adding more content to the article, i didn't pay attention to your modifications, which might well had discouraged you to keep doing the same work over and over again, sorry for that.

I worked on the summary and i would like to thank you for the excellent copy edit and the feedback, i will work based on that of yours and scope and sure explain in the TP each additions i might do.

Speaking of the Political status section, after a previous disagreement, we agreed that this part doesn't need a summary, it's pretty important as it is to understand the political developpement of Algiers, also it's not nearly as big as the History section. The article is at 8500 words right now, which fixes by far the article length issue.

I'm glad i could add that fundamental pact into the article, it's basically the constitution of the regency of Algiers, you may want to read this page[1] Hamdan Khodja also mentions it as a "relic containing the rules of the regency, a charter". It's held by the Agha of the army who was the president of the diwan of Algiers.[2] Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Sabotage is too strong a word, because it implies you were doing it on purpose. I never thought that. Thank you for the apology however. We were all tired. I have about a million open tabs and a couple of RL problems I need to look into, but I am around if any questions arise about something I said in the edit summaries. If it is burdensome to switch back and forth between the talk and article pages the maximum amount of text allowed in an edit summary is actually quite large. Note that this may not be acceptable in all circumstances; we seem to have some mutual respect going on here and in a more hostile environment communicating in edit summaries only might get you into trouble. Just a word of warning as an aside. But for the next round of work here I think that would be fine; at least it would be fine with me. You might want to add those references about the pact into the section. The fact that there was a constitution is actually very important. Elinruby (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Worked on the controversial terms you listed by givin explanatory additions, and added refs and some informations about the Agha-president of the diwan and the charter of Algiers (Fundamental pact). Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

yeah I saw what you did for "renegade": exactly. That is what I meant. I may come back with a quibble about the reference or the wording but yes, that was great. Really. Not really available at the moment but wanted to say that.

So are we reaching a stable version, it looks like? I will be gone all day today but could do a final edit pretty soon. One comment that I don't think I flagged before: One of the alts said someone was dressed in "an oriental outfit". The word "oriental" can be offensive if applied to Chinese or Korean people, for whom it is recommended to use "Asian" instead. I am less sure about its use for Turkey and the Middle East, but on the other hand I don't think I have ever seen the word used about that area in English, and even in French I think it might be coming from some of the 19th-century French sources, which as we have discussed are pretty chauvinistic. That alt should say the man is wearing robes, or if it is important that the clothing is Turkish or what it is exactly (I don't quite remember but think not) we should use a more specific term. I have to go like right now, but can fix that in the copy edit -- I just am trying to prevent the term from reappearing elsewhere in the text. This article is currently my top priority if it is ready for a final copyedit. Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Evening Folks!! @Elinruby: @Nourerrahmane: I've taken out the references that are not used in each article. I guess there will be some cross-referencing that will need to be done to remove those refs that were used in the main article and found they're way into the history article and vice-versa. That will remove some of them but there is that expectation for FA that those references will be used, if applicable. I will do the cross-ref now, for example Bachelot 2012 is used in the Regency article but is in FR in the history article, so can be removed. scope_creep^Talk 17:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be one ref: Allioui, 2006 that is both fr sections but is not used in either. @Nourerrahmane: can you check it and see if there is anything in it that needs added in somehow. I've removed every other ref that used, so the fr sections have now shrunk. scope_creep^Talk 20:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• History of the Regency of Algiers has no alt tags on the images. scope_creep^Talk 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

will look for this on my pass through. Anyone who wants to make a start on this, please feel free Elinruby (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• There are still missing alt tags in the History article Elinruby (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

PRG has more comments for action. One of them, fixing the Brill ref which has incorrect author info, which I've partially fixed. Ref 142 which is on page 947 isn't in the first volume so needs a new ref entry in the bib. Page number in vol 1 only go up to 565. What volume number was that ref taken from? scope_creep^Talk 22:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey scope! thanks for all your work! the ref is actually vol 2 p 947 [3] Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Morning @Nourerrahmane: The history article also has the same problem. Can you check for the brill ref. I think a couple are good around page 268 )or so), but the rest are not. I'll create a ref for this later and the history article. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Morining scope, i'll work on it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming the history article will be reviewed for GA/FA at the same time, as its two parts of the same article. Taking cognizance of that, the lede needs some work. scope_creep^Talk 08:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, however i dunno how to fix to multitarget issue. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Multitarget issue? I will be available for at least a couple of hours this evening PDT but let me skim what's going on here to see if anything else needs clarification. As it is so fat, lede on History, yep, will copyedit and whatever multitarget means. Elinruby (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't see anything else I am confused about. If there is anything I should particularly look at please leave me a note here. The edit I am proposing to do will be less aggressive that the early ones, which were intended to get rid of any ancient cut and paste wording that might have still persisted since before any of us were involved. Going to be focusing on readability and does-it-make-sense. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the lede slightly to formalise it and encapsulate the meaning and added a short description. scope_creep^Talk 10:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you remove them? Or does that need to be done? I have a version of the infox map that says "Sahara" in two places if that is of interest to anyone.Elinruby (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I would normally not flag this change, but it is the lead sentence of the article. The change in emphasis results in the Regency of Algiers being a subsection of early modern history and not just of the Ottoman Empire, also, so this is also a slight shift in meaning. Please advise if I appear to be misunderstanding something, otherwise I think it is an improvement and given the international trade aspects is only due. imho. Article's discussion on international trade may be lacking however as I recall. Anyway. I changed the lead sentence. Let me know if people do not like the change. The main point against the rewrite is that it creates a big descriptor stack, but I think "early modern largely independent sovereign military republic" is perfectly understandable. It is also however possible that I have read this material once too often. LMK.

Also, the very next sentence says it was a military oligarchy, which isn't really the same thing. I realize it was both at different times, but this is not clear in the writing and I don't think we need to be so wrapped up in using oligarchy in a sentence that we have to do it here. There will be plenty of opportunities to use the word oligarchy. For purposes of the summary it can be a republic because that is what it was at the end.

All of the above is up for discussion.

could say "autonomous" rather than "largely independent" Elinruby (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe that all of this is addressed in subsequent edits, which are also up for discussion if not considered improvements. Elinruby (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's what we need to know about the rulers of Ottoman Algeria:

- They were Ottoman regents; they ruled in the name of the Ottoman Sultan who was nominally King of Algiers but not an effective ruler.

- They were sovereigns in all but name, means they were largely independent, i'd prefer this than just autonomous, as this can cover only the internal affairs. Largely independence means nominal suzerainty, though still important for legitimacy of the Algerian deys, it didn't not prevent them from adopting an independent foreign policy.

- They were appointed regents before 1659, then elected after this date, that's why we're talking about a stratocracy, but they remained regents nevertheless.

- Starting from Dey Hadj Chabane until 1830, they had to be native Anatolian Turks who were drawn from the janissary odjak of Algiers. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I see these points and think they are good ones. I am having a little trouble wrapping my mind around the elected regents, but I note that this does mean we need a wording change, and I see what you mean about largely independent. That one is about euphony so the accuracy problem definitely trumps that. So rewrite of the rewrite to come I guess. Let me take a look at what Scope just did. Will work on this. Elinruby (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Elin. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I did a reword of the lede, what do you think about it ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I am pretty happy with the lede right now as I remember it and I am pretty sure it was after your re-write. Was this about oligarchy vs republic? Have done a fast and superficial copy-edit in the body, not really done though. The spot checks on sourcing are coming up perfect so far. Is there any way we could get another source in the Crafts section? Elinruby (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

OK I took another look at the lede, which had in fact been re-written. I didn't like themed and changed that, otherwise I think the lede is good. You are ok with the word order change? I put largely independent back in. Elinruby (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

lede looks good and I approve your word change thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking about the Craft section and will try to find another source. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Nourerrahmane I am under the impression that when you objected to the rewrite of the lede, I fixed two of them immediately and the other two were fixed to your satisfaction in your rewrite, which I agreed with, Just checking on that. Putting it another way, are the issues with the lede resolved or does something need to be done?

The Ottoman corsair brothers Aruj and Hayreddin Barbarossa came to North Africa[16] when the citizens of Béjaïa asked for help in 1512,[17] then those of Jijel in 1514.[18] In 1516, the brothers were able to take Algiers,[19][20]

This is pretty picky but there is no context for the decision to take Algiers. This can be just a word or two. Elinruby (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Y I realize this is due to the extreme condensation of the material. Elinruby (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Not seeing a link between the War of Independence and increased American maritime trade. I do recall one of the sources saying that the Americans were no longer considered "British shipping" and therefore were not covered by treaty. This could be me and I may clear this myself later, just want to note it Elinruby (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, i added some context in lede. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Y that tells me what I needed to know. Will work on how to say that. Elinruby (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

think this is done if anyone cares to check me Elinruby (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"Istanbul viewed the idea of integrating a territory so far away and so close to Spain as a risk." A sentence was added afterwards and sourced to Kaddache. Is this sentence also Kaddache? If not could we either remove it or source it please? Elinruby (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Y It looks like Nour has added another cite to Kaddache at the end of this sentence, so it is no longer unsourced. Elinruby (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Out of sheer exasperation with crickets I am going to apply the following conventions:

• words that might be unfamiliar wikilinked if possible, but let's not italicize every mention of "dey" and "bey" and the like. I realize that I am the one who did this but I didn't realize at the time how much these words appear in some sections

First problem: "beylik" is a dab page and does not mention either Algiers or Algeria.

beyliks is mention twice as provices. I've removed the 2nd one. The dab page. I would put a small bracketed sentence stating its an administraive province and bypass the dab page. scope_creep^Talk 10:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• title should be capitalized as part of a name, only. Some names incorporate titles for disambiguation (Hassan Pasha for example) where the title should then also be capitalized. So for example, the King of France but the French Bourbon king. The Dey of Algiers, but the janissaries assassinated the new dey and others weren't willing to stand for election.

• Capitalizing Regency when it appears in this article as "the Regency", as per "the Republic"" when discussing France. Y That looks fine. scope_creep^Talk 10:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• We have I think agreed on a spelling of Diwan with an accent circonflexe on the a and not on the i. I see its been changed to "dîwân". I would leave it at that. Let the GA editor decide if it needs change, since this is about the 3rd time we have looked at this. Y scope_creep^Talk 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Nonetheless I left the Ottoman Odjak rank titles (master of horse etc) italicized because they are pretty unfamiliar and also only occur once. (But are linked). Again the GA editor will look at this. Y scope_creep^Talk 10:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

If anybody disagrees, this is the time to speak up. At least it will be internally consistent this way, and it looks like there is no standard MoS.

RE "council of powers" in edit summaries, that's great, so if it is a name or a nickname, it would be capitalized and not in quotes though. Is source for this name in English?

I can see why you wouldn't capitalize it then. Let me look at the source and see if I can make it work. The goal here is to underline that they are important? Elinruby (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes it's in English in Wolf ref p 290Speaking of the Beylik, there is already the word (province) next to it that explains it. Dunno where the problem is.

nothing with the article really. It was just that I tried to make a general rule and already had to make an exception. But the only solution I see to that is making a beylek stub that can be an entry on the disambiguation page and I am not volunteering for that at the moment, are you? It is something to come back to later.

by the way, you have the part about "the dey" vs Dey used as a title just right. But I was saying let's *not* italicize the more common titles like Dey and bey. If you on the other hand would like to use italics then er why? Assuming there is a reason I will probably be fine with it, but don't do it because you think that is what I said. Er? Let me know. Not doing anything with italics until I hear from you about this

getting back to Wolf, did *he* capitalize it? That is why I asked whether it was in English.

I think there is no need to link the word 'beylik' since there is a short explanation for it next to it, it's the litteral word for provinces of the regency of Algiers. Also all three beyliks of the regency are linked. Y I agree. Its done. scope_creep^Talk 11:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Italic was used for such words of Ottoman terminology "dey, bey, Pasha, diwan" when they were first mentionned in the article and when they were succeeded with their detailed explanation.

Wolf writes: "This made the council of the "powers" (ministers) into a cohesive and structurally solid force" 11:05, 6 June 2024‎ user:Elinruby Sig added by scope_creep^Talk 10:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought I answered this bit apparently not. In that case it's a quote indeed but I find it confusing so there may be a different way to write it. Will work on it.

scope creep no if you are seeing an accent circonflexe anywhere but on the a, that is the one that we are trying to standardize away from. I will get these on the phone later when I have the widget to make diacriticals. The 'sabove comment is not me by the way. I thought it was Nour.Elinruby (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: @Nourerrahmane: Remember to sign your name. Elinruby, Is that is diwan your talking about? scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)editors tha

right. There was an agreement reached, I just had to ask more than once and that's what you are remembering Elinruby (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• another point that never got settled was janissary vs Janissary. Elinruby (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Lowercase. A elite but common soldier and nothing special. scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

OK good then this should mostly be done. Elinruby (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

How are we getting on with processing PRG list. I've checked a whole bundle of that have been done. The following needs done still

• The last two entries in the craft bullet list needs refs.
• The Igawawen flag entry. Has that been checked?
• Administraive changes after Baba Abdi. Has been done?
• The inflation template entries need to be done.
• Were the tribute values yearly or paid over the years? Specify as such?

scope_creepTalk 11:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

- Not yet.

- No idea what this is about.

- Done

- Done

- Done Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: Inflation templates are in then I'm not sure how they work. scope_creep^Talk 11:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I just had to type FR in the index as most of these values are in French franc, i added the original dates of those values then converted the current day value from French franc to USD. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find it, so couldn't verify it. Thats done. Also, I've sent a clarification message to Matrisvan about that flag entry. I don't know what it is either. scope_creep^Talk 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC) scope_creep^Talk 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

First point done. Btw i found this 16th century map of the regency. do you think we should include it in the article ? [4] Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed the flags per [[MOS:FLAG]] Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not done any of that, but I want to check the craft section anyway so I will sign up for the first bullet point Elinruby (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I just saw Nour saying he did it. I am not against the map but where do you want to put it? My main thought about that map is that i don't want to write alts if you are still replacing images, is all. But I don't have to do that right now and yeah, it's a very high-resolution image. Attractive. Would you crop it? Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I donnno how to crop it, and i'm thinking about adding it in the beylerbeylik period or Algerian expansion sections Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Nah i won't replace anything lol Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I can crop it if you want it cropped. I wouldn't go in too close but I could produce an image that was cut to just the white background for example. Elinruby (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Great ! please do it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I just saw this but I could to that right now, actually. Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It is cropped and in the section. I don't know if you want it to be to the right like that, but you know what to do from here, right?

Nothing back from Matarisvan yet about the flag thing. I think its the only thing thats outstanding. Is it near a GA entry now. scope_creep^Talk 10:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the rest that has not been marked as done yet is also fixed. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no other responses in PRG. I don't know if we will get anything more, although something might appear on Sunday. @Elinruby: How are you getting on with the copyedit to the history article. Matarisvan has been in all day and not commented to my talk page message. I guess ignore it for the moment. It might come up at GA. How close are we to submitting it then. scope_creep^Talk 15:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: Hows the new map getting on. It needs to be in a placed with alt tags before submission. I can reduce if need back or speak to my map guy if help is needed. I sound as though I'm champing at the bit. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The infobox map? Looks well, you just need to mark the Sahara Desert so readers don't confused why the regency never expanded south. Matarisvan (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Matarisvan: That comment was for Nourerrahmane. Must have made a mistake on the ping. I left a talk page message regarding the PRG comment "The Igawawen flag on the article and here are very different, consider using the former? There was some confusio on it. What was that about, exactly? scope_creep^Talk 21:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The Igawawen flag used in the infobox and the one on their article was different. However Nourerrahmane has removed the flags so it's not an issue now. Matarisvan (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If you or Elin can crop it that would be great ! Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

we're talking about cropping the map, right? I was not able to easily find a source for the Igawawen flag, if that's the other thing going on. I would be sort of surprised if it was real but I am not completely ruling it out. Going to go crop the image if it isn't already cropped. On how are we doing? We are submitting both articles together, right? I could use some help with photo alts. I am finding little bits of stray French in the rewrites. As far as I can tell it might as well...well wait, I thought the listing was suspended? Are they asking about it? I think that if it were reviewed right now they would find at least those problems, but it does such a fine job of pulling so many threads together that I dunno, I would send back a list of fixes rather than fail it. But I am not exactly unbiased at this point. Nourrerahmane certainly carries the day on sourcing, though.Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I will check the alts on the history article today. No I don't think so. When its submitted for the GA the next time it won't fail, I can assure you. scope_creep^Talk 08:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) ,

@Elinruby: The Igawawen flag has been done and checked off. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

ok this is me not worrying about it then Elinruby (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: There is missing images alts on this article. scope_creep^Talk 09:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @M.Bitton, i have found that this name "نيابة الجزائر" is widespread in these Arab RS: [5] It's referred explicitly as the official name of the Regency and i think it falls in the WP:COMMONNAME. Do you beleive it should be put in the infobox ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane: correct me if I'm wrong, but the common name is simply "الجزائر" (that's the name that should be in the infobox if a change is needed). M.Bitton (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

It is, but Algiers alone could be confusing as it doesn't emphasize the political aspect of Algiers, especially that we had socks here that claimed that Algeria was not a state literally...But since this is no longer a matter of debate. I beleive we can add something more formal. Just like for people's democratic republic of Algeria. I honestly think this is by far the best Arabic name for the regency, a state or a kingdom ruled by a formal representative of the Sultan. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I hate to be That Editor but what do the sources call it? Elinruby (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby Arabic sources agree on “نيابة الجزائر" (Arabic: Nyabat Al-Djazair) literally Regency of Algiers. This name sets Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli apart from other ottoman EyaletsHowever this is not a wildly known name among regular or even confirmed Algerian or Arab readers. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that commonname is supposed to over-ride sources, if that is what you are saying. I am also emphatically not qualified to opine on what the name is for things in Arabic. But I think COMMONNAME is the common name *in the sources* Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

That's what i meant by bringing COMMONNAME in here, but i believe this has to go through a consensus. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say it would be good to do that although I don't think it is a requirement. But if you are getting grief from people who learned another version of history, probably wise. But we are talking about Arabic sources, right? You might be able to get a couple of well-considered opinions at the Reference desk on the Community Page. Otherwise you probably know better than I do how to find Arabic speakers, no? Do you have a list of places where it is used? That would probably help. Elinruby (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

PS we didn't have this referenced? I haven't looked at the infobox much but why not just source Regency and leave it at that? In any event I bow to the better topic knowledge of Arabic speakers. Buut..RfC? Why though, if it is sourced? M.Bitton might know how the procedures work, or R.Prazeres

we have a failed verification: source does not say golden age of corsairs. It does say golden age of Algiers. Consider changing the text to match; otherwise you need a different source. I am also not convinced about the capitalization Elinruby (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Carr p. 43 is talking about the Inquisition and says nothing about Algiers Elinruby (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

When you get an author like Algerian Historical Society you don't split the name up into first and last, you just call them author. Needs fixing.Elinruby (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to go fix this one. There may briefly be a no-target error. Elinruby (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done in this edit. See: ibn Bekir (1860). Mathglot (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Si Bouaziz ben M'hamed ben Gana [fr] is the closest I have been able to come, though that article does mention an ancestor with a more plausible time frame. It does seem to be a big sprawling political family. Is there really no article on the family itself? It seems notable. At the moment doing nothing about it because not sure what,Elinruby (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think so unfortunately :( a member of this family is my doctor actually and we spoke about this time period. They were related to Ahmad Bey of Constantine. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Ps: @Elinruby I might not be available today also just like yesterday because Wikipedia is inaccessible in Algeria during Baccalaureate degree exams. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. I need to knock off for now. Elinruby (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

About electing leaders in the Dey section: absolute equality by unanimous vote

• should that say universal vote? Unanimous means that not one person disagrees, but don't you mean that everyone gets to vote? Elinruby (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah everyone should agree among the senior officers (Bulukbasi) of the armed forces so that the Dey is elected. (They have a sort of Veto) Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

OK Elinruby (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No universal and unanimous are not the same. scope_creep^Talk 22:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I answered this. I understand the distinction and you are right, then, the change should not be made. I am just thinking about the wording, since "absolute equality" isn't exactly right then is it? As of right now I have changed nothing, mind you. It's just a little bit of a readability porthole.

Another one, and let me stress that these are both very minor quibbles: Pasha;^[1] a regent with the title of beylerbey.^[2][3] (from Hayreddin's consolidation)

Wasn't pasha a title? If not it should not be capitalized. I think this should be read in the sense of the emperor's representative, no? Elinruby (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and lowercase pasha. Other text remains unchanged Elinruby (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)