![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Especially last two sentences. Is "reputed" actually the concept that the writer of the article meant? Perhaps "known for piracy" would be better? I hesitate to make the change, not knowing either the original author's intent or the history well enough to correct anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FurnaldHall ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
What is this racism on wikipedia? Everyone knows that whites were NEVER slaves! This article needs to be deleted! 2601:806:4301:C100:5D7F:9053:2B22:55B ( talk) 21:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Someone seems unable to recognize sarcasm... Just another "white oppression" conspiracy theorist type who thinks slave trades involving whites are deliberately covered up by some nebulous "white genocide agenda". The article is fine, nobody thinks it's "racist".
He doesn't have sources to back up his claim because he is not sincerely making the claim that "whites were NEVER slaves". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.189.184 ( talk) 20:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is saying this article is racist, nobody is trying to cover up the Barbary Slave Trade, stop pretending to be oppressed. If you have any useful information to contribute to this article by all means provide some credible sources and help develop it. If you're just here to cry about conspiracy theories you are not contributing information that will help develop this article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.48.174 ( talk) 15:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Blacks weren't only slaves. You clearly don't know shit about history if you think blacks were the only group of people enslaved. Yellowgirl44x44 ( talk) 21:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It's also somewhat present in almost all pages on slavery. However, Wikipedia should be objective. 207.161.196.71 ( talk) 01:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Please point out specific paragraphs you feel are subjective so they can be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.48.174 ( talk) 15:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Barbary slave trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
"The North African slave markets were part of the Berber slave trade." Is the "Berber slave trade" the same thing as the "Barbary slave trade"? If so, then why is there an (empty) link to the "Berber slave trade" in the Lede of the Article on the "Barbary slave trade", as if they are two different things? If they are different, it might be more useful and informative if the link to "Berber slave trade" where an internal link that went to a brief passage that differentiates between the two, else if they are the same thing, it seems to me the link should be removed and some kind of disambiguation language should be added at the beginning of the Article that explains they are the same thing. It also occurs to me that it might be a matter of perspective; this Article focuses on the slave trade from the perspective of who was involved in io it, while the (unwritten) "Berber" article is intended to discuss the slave trade in terms of the region, which seems to me to be an unnecessary distinction, but maybe not. It's confusing in it's current state, to someone that knows nothing about it. Tym Whittier ( talk) 14:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
With regard o the recent addition by the IP:
while most were Arabs and Berbers
since the source says no such thing, my question is: why are you insisting on pushing this POV here and on the
Barbary pirates article?
M.Bitton (
talk)
11:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The article cites a newspaper article (!) that questions a book from Emeritus Professor Robert Davis of Ohio State University, a history professor specializing in Mediterranean history. The newspaper article says this, and I quote: "However David Earle, author of The Corsairs of Malta and Barbary and The Pirate Wars, said that Prof Davis may have erred". Grammar aside, there is no David Earle that has ever authored any book entitled "The Corsairs of Malta and Barbary and The Pirate Wars". Sure, the book exists, but it was authored by Peter Earle. Look, this is very sloppy newspapering contradicting a book edited in Hampshire (England) and New York (USA) by Palgrave Macmillan, which Wikipedia describes "a British academic and trade publishing company headquartered in the London Borough of Camden. Its programme includes textbooks, journals, monographs, professional and reference works in print and online."
Now, I am not saying that Davis' methodology is perfect —though it may well be—, nor that Peter Earle may not have valid criticisms, but I am saying that we need a better source for any Peter Earle criticisms. The Wikipedia policy for WP:RS says: Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics, and furthermore WP:SCHOLARSHIP recommends material issued by "well-regarded academic presses" (like academic press Palgrave Macmillan) so it absolutely is WP:UNDUE to give overdue weight to an unreliable news report when contradicting a reliable source from a specialist in the subject matter. XavierItzm ( talk) 15:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
No David Earle exists that has cautioned anything( diff) is a claim that needs to be substantiated using reliable sources. M.Bitton ( talk) 22:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, why can't I put this information " A compilation of partial statistics and patchy estimates indicates that almost 2 million Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles were seized from 1468 to 1694. Additionally, there were slaves from the Caucasus obtained by a mixture of raiding and trading. 16th- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul's slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700." from Eltis, David; Bradley, Keith; Engerman, Stanley L.; Cartledge, Paul (2011). The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521840682
at the start of the article when it talks about numbers? Ninhursag3 ( talk) 16:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ Skitash, i'm afraid i have to agree with the IP, though (he should have better formulated his point). The Maghreb regencies were de facto and largely independent. But, they were regencies... Kingdoms ruled by representatives of the King. The Ottoman Sultan was nominally king of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, but he didn't effectively rule there, the rulers were therefore regents who were elected locally and acted independently. In Ottoman terminology, the regencies were called "Odjaks of the west" or Western military governments, heriditary in Tunis and Tripoli and republican in Algiers. the rulers were Ottoman elites who were politically affiliated to their Maghrebi states. So we're still within the Ottoman framework. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 14:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Especially last two sentences. Is "reputed" actually the concept that the writer of the article meant? Perhaps "known for piracy" would be better? I hesitate to make the change, not knowing either the original author's intent or the history well enough to correct anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FurnaldHall ( talk • contribs) 02:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
What is this racism on wikipedia? Everyone knows that whites were NEVER slaves! This article needs to be deleted! 2601:806:4301:C100:5D7F:9053:2B22:55B ( talk) 21:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Someone seems unable to recognize sarcasm... Just another "white oppression" conspiracy theorist type who thinks slave trades involving whites are deliberately covered up by some nebulous "white genocide agenda". The article is fine, nobody thinks it's "racist".
He doesn't have sources to back up his claim because he is not sincerely making the claim that "whites were NEVER slaves". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.189.184 ( talk) 20:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is saying this article is racist, nobody is trying to cover up the Barbary Slave Trade, stop pretending to be oppressed. If you have any useful information to contribute to this article by all means provide some credible sources and help develop it. If you're just here to cry about conspiracy theories you are not contributing information that will help develop this article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.48.174 ( talk) 15:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Blacks weren't only slaves. You clearly don't know shit about history if you think blacks were the only group of people enslaved. Yellowgirl44x44 ( talk) 21:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It's also somewhat present in almost all pages on slavery. However, Wikipedia should be objective. 207.161.196.71 ( talk) 01:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Please point out specific paragraphs you feel are subjective so they can be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.48.174 ( talk) 15:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Barbary slave trade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
"The North African slave markets were part of the Berber slave trade." Is the "Berber slave trade" the same thing as the "Barbary slave trade"? If so, then why is there an (empty) link to the "Berber slave trade" in the Lede of the Article on the "Barbary slave trade", as if they are two different things? If they are different, it might be more useful and informative if the link to "Berber slave trade" where an internal link that went to a brief passage that differentiates between the two, else if they are the same thing, it seems to me the link should be removed and some kind of disambiguation language should be added at the beginning of the Article that explains they are the same thing. It also occurs to me that it might be a matter of perspective; this Article focuses on the slave trade from the perspective of who was involved in io it, while the (unwritten) "Berber" article is intended to discuss the slave trade in terms of the region, which seems to me to be an unnecessary distinction, but maybe not. It's confusing in it's current state, to someone that knows nothing about it. Tym Whittier ( talk) 14:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
With regard o the recent addition by the IP:
while most were Arabs and Berbers
since the source says no such thing, my question is: why are you insisting on pushing this POV here and on the
Barbary pirates article?
M.Bitton (
talk)
11:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The article cites a newspaper article (!) that questions a book from Emeritus Professor Robert Davis of Ohio State University, a history professor specializing in Mediterranean history. The newspaper article says this, and I quote: "However David Earle, author of The Corsairs of Malta and Barbary and The Pirate Wars, said that Prof Davis may have erred". Grammar aside, there is no David Earle that has ever authored any book entitled "The Corsairs of Malta and Barbary and The Pirate Wars". Sure, the book exists, but it was authored by Peter Earle. Look, this is very sloppy newspapering contradicting a book edited in Hampshire (England) and New York (USA) by Palgrave Macmillan, which Wikipedia describes "a British academic and trade publishing company headquartered in the London Borough of Camden. Its programme includes textbooks, journals, monographs, professional and reference works in print and online."
Now, I am not saying that Davis' methodology is perfect —though it may well be—, nor that Peter Earle may not have valid criticisms, but I am saying that we need a better source for any Peter Earle criticisms. The Wikipedia policy for WP:RS says: Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics, and furthermore WP:SCHOLARSHIP recommends material issued by "well-regarded academic presses" (like academic press Palgrave Macmillan) so it absolutely is WP:UNDUE to give overdue weight to an unreliable news report when contradicting a reliable source from a specialist in the subject matter. XavierItzm ( talk) 15:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
No David Earle exists that has cautioned anything( diff) is a claim that needs to be substantiated using reliable sources. M.Bitton ( talk) 22:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, why can't I put this information " A compilation of partial statistics and patchy estimates indicates that almost 2 million Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles were seized from 1468 to 1694. Additionally, there were slaves from the Caucasus obtained by a mixture of raiding and trading. 16th- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul's slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700." from Eltis, David; Bradley, Keith; Engerman, Stanley L.; Cartledge, Paul (2011). The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521840682
at the start of the article when it talks about numbers? Ninhursag3 ( talk) 16:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello @ Skitash, i'm afraid i have to agree with the IP, though (he should have better formulated his point). The Maghreb regencies were de facto and largely independent. But, they were regencies... Kingdoms ruled by representatives of the King. The Ottoman Sultan was nominally king of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, but he didn't effectively rule there, the rulers were therefore regents who were elected locally and acted independently. In Ottoman terminology, the regencies were called "Odjaks of the west" or Western military governments, heriditary in Tunis and Tripoli and republican in Algiers. the rulers were Ottoman elites who were politically affiliated to their Maghrebi states. So we're still within the Ottoman framework. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 14:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)