the same template, History of modern states of oto.... is repeated twice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzlinker ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
As it has been the case since 2011, some users keep pushing their PoV making Algeria a kind of independent state before 1830 while, as it is commonly admitted by historians and historiography, the Regency of Algiers was an Ottoman province -no matter how autonomous it was, as it was also the case of all Ottoman Eyalets.
Note that this issue was previously discussed and disruptive editors blocked on ANI ( 1, 2 & 3)
-- Omar-toons ( talk) 00:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
the Ottoman regency of Algiers was transformed into a sort of military republic when the troops stationed there rebelled against the Ottoman governor in 1689 and installed one of their officers as ruler, giving him the title of dey (maternal uncle). The Ottoman troops thus emerged as a ruling caste that periodically renewed itself with fresh recruits from various parts of the Mediterranean region. The deys, chosen from within this caste, governed Algeria independently from the Ottoman government. They retained religious ties to the Ottoman sultan, however, by recognizing him as caliph and by making the Ḥanafī school of law—the official school of the Ottoman Empire—the official school of law in Algeria as well.
The Turkish presence in Algeria lasted from 1555 to 1830.
After centuries as both the westernmost province of the Ottoman Empire and a base for the Barbary pirates, Algeria was invaded and colonized by the French in 1830.
When the French turned their eyes to the kingdom of Algiers in 1830, the region had been under Ottoman rule since 1516. The Regency of Algiers was a province of the Ottoman empire under the authority of the dey of Algiers, who had acquired a large degree of autonomy from the sultan and who was chosen by Janissaries, the Ottoman militia of Algiers.
[In 1671] Ottoman Algeria became a military republic, ruled in the name of the Ottoman sultan by officers chosen by and in the interest of the Ujaq.
So I got interested in reading about some North African Ottoman history in this summer and I find it interesting that Hayreddin asked for Selim 1 protection in 1519 by sending him a petition from the Algerian population for protection in Late 1519 about October or November, after few months he received an official decree and was given the title of Beylerbey, provided him with 2,000 Janisarries and 4,000 Levantines. It was absorbed to the Empire in 1520, COINS were Struck Firday Khutba was made to the Caliph. Anyone who knows basic History would realize that this is asign of allegiance in kingdoms in Islam were you make a Khutba to the Ruler and struck coin an example would be Saladin making the Khutba towards the Abbasid Caliph.
I think we can safely remove the c.1517 sign, Oruc was never part of the Empire. This grey period was just some pirates ruling between 1517 and 1520, but many sources will never go to detail and say that 1516/1517 is when Ottoman started controlling Algeria which is wrong. Anyone agree with me? Alexis Ivanov ( talk) 02:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Aṭlas ( talk · contribs)
1)I don't understand why you cancel my contribs, better referenced than what was previously written. Moreover in the previous references there is a misappropriation of books because it is used to justify elements that are not dealt with in any way by the authors (in exemple the ottoman flag). On subjects as complicated as statutes or historical emblems the recommendations of Wikipedia require the use of a bibliography centered on the subject (the books on the history of Algeria or the regency of Algiers).
Historiography is rather polluted by terms derived from 19th historians who often recopy terms derived from colonial bias. This is why the contributions of modern historians (Kaddache, Meynier, Ghalem, Remaoun, Boyer, C-A Julien ...) are more neutral. I invite you to see the bibliography on the article of the French wikipedia which can serve as model.
2)The title Ottoman Algeria is not the most notorious, it is the regency of Algiers which seems most dependent in scholarly literature. 366 occurrences in Google Books for "ottoman algeria" vs 9940 occurrences in Google Books for "regency of algiers". In the recommendation of WP, the title must be the most notorious. Thank you, Kabyle20 ( talk) 23:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller, Aṭlas, and Surena20:
Hi, How can you support a version that contradicts the references? In the book of Abun nasr, p.151 and 152 ; the country is called "regency of Algiers" and the map is centered on the regency and not on the rest of the Empire. There is already a misinterpretation of the reference on this point. Then on the francophone wikipedia there has already been a discussion on this subject. This discussion made it possible to highlight references of quality centered on the subject. Like the historians Mahfoud Kaddache, Lemnouar merouche, and Gilbert Meynier. I will not quote here all the sentences, the references are available in history of the article and in the francophone page.
I would just quote Hassan Ramaoun historian at the Oran CRASC which summarizes quite well the opinion of various authors: "The Algerian State is undoubtedly an independent and sovereign entity, responding to the current definitions of international law, traditional conditions (territory, human community, public authority, effective independence, international recognition ) are largely united. The Turks managed to give the central Maghreb a geopolitical autonomy sufficient to differentiate them from neighboring countries (Collective coordinated by Hassan Ramaoun, Algeria: history, society and culture, Casbah Editions, 2000).
There is a consensus on several points: the name (Regency of Algiers), besides the current version is in contradiction with its own sources, the fact that the regency is a state and a rapid political description (organization, beylik ect. ..). Removing all this information without explanation and without bothering to open a book to understand them is simply vandalism. For the map it was approved by the historian Jean Louis Triaud who had participated in a controversy by giving his expert opinion at the request of a mediator of WP:fr ; Apart from this approval it is based on the euratlas historical background map and the works indicated in the description of Common. Thank you for replying by sources please. Best regards, Kabyle20 ( talk) 09:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
M.Bitton stop this edit war now !!!! whats wrong with my map since it refer to the same year 1771 ???. -- 41.248.118.204 ( talk) 22:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Kabz15,
you keep creating and inserting maps that show Morocco or parts of Morocco as part of Ottoman Algeria, which as already explained above is both inconsistent with any reliable history book and inconsistent with the text of the article itself. Your
latest map (which I just removed) says it includes a list of "sources" in the corner, but that list is almost illegible and doesn't include full bibliographical details so neither myself or anyone can verify it. It also doesn't explain how you determined the territorial limits of brief Ottoman incursions to the west and doesn't make up for the obvious vagueness of the information presented. There is already a map in the first section of this page that shows many of the Ottoman campaigns into Morocco in a non-misleading way, with more precision, and with a list of sources; so in fact I don't see why any other map is needed along these lines, especially if its singular purpose seems to be to push a certain point of view.
Also worrying is this edit today where you copied information from this page, including some of the sources, to another page but presented it in an incomplete way and with less context (along with your map). You've made edits with a similar POV in the past, such as this one and this one. Please be more careful and don't represent information from sources in an incomplete, selective, or deceptive way that leads readers to a particular viewpoint that you favour (i.e. that Morocco was annexed or controlled by the Ottoman Empire). This could be seen as pushing Fringe views on the encyclopedia. Please review Wikipedia's policies on Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and Original research. Thanks, R Prazeres ( talk) 23:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The sources included on the map highlight that the Regency under Salah Rais conquered Morocco up until Fez in 1554 and added these territories to the Ottoman crown or extended the border to Morocco [1] [2] [3]
The others source highlight how Morocco recognised the Ottoman-Algerian sovereignty over eastern Morocco after the Battle of Moulouya [4]
These are significant events that happened during the history of Ottoman Algeria which is why they’ve been included. Furthermore, the western “border” is not the border, these are the conquests which are shown in a slightly darker red colour. The Regency of Algiers did conquer these regions so what’s shown in the map under conquests has been validated and so has the justification for the addition of this map itself. The map simply shows conquests and raids and gives a more detailed view of these events which are not touched on as much in the other maps. In fact the other maps are quite vague and not detailed enough which is why I decide to add this map as it is more detailed, precise and includes much more information. Thanks, ( Kabz15 ( talk) 10:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC))
Well the difference between the Tlemcen battle and the battles in which the Moroccan regions were captured is that those were victories and sovereignty was actually established there for a brief while via the Wattasid sultans vassalage in the Kingdom of Fez and a treaty which acknowledged the sovereignty in the eastern part of Morocco. Also the border did briefly extend to these regions as confirmed by the sources. The presence in eastern Morocco itself was not exactly brief either and there are maps that do acknowledge these borders, however I do agree with your point that the “borders” seem to be misleading. As a result I’ve uploaded a new map making it clear that these regions were only briefly captured. Thanks, ( Kabz15 ( talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC))
Hi @ Kabz15: is there any good confirmation about those two exclaves in the south, in yourmap ? I think the regions are adrar and ain salah. Because apparently from what I've seen except from the expedition of salah reis, being that far away deep in tge south they were just abondonned for the local tribes untill the french colonisation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyhgfthj ( talk • contribs) 18 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Hello to everyone,
I'm writing this message to share my opinion about an aspect of this article. Indeed, I think that the title should be changed. "Ottoman Algeria" defines the real status of the State of Algiers only during a particular phase of its history (namely the period when the government was ruled by a Beylerbey sent by the Ottoman caliph). Going from the revolution of the Deys in 1671 and more from the reign of Baba Ali Chaouch, the State of Algiers was politically and military independent of the Ottoman Empire, so, we can't really consider that as an "Ottoman" period as would suggest the current title.
My suggestion is the next : The best title would be "State of Algiers". Some people have considered that the term "Deylik of Algiers" would fit better with the subject. I share this opinion, it would effectively be more appropriated to use it. However, stills that it is not the better designation possible. As a matter of fact, using "Deylik of Algiers" would be great if we were talking only about the period between 1671 and 1830, when the State was ruled by the Deys. That would not include the autonomous eras of the Sultanate (from 1515 to 1533) and the Pachalik (from 1577 to 1671), and evidently the really "ottoman" period of the Beylik.
Also, you might know, maybe after reading what's above, that the period of the Beylik is a minor phase of the State of Algiers, from a chronological point of view. So, in my opinion, the current title contributes to reduce the whole modern period of Algeria to a minor part of its political history, which is damageable.
The term "State of Algiers" is the best because it includes all the eras that been through Algeria during its modern period, independently of its relation with the Ottoman Empire, but only depending on its government. Effectively, this one always took the aspect of a military republic, essentially ruled by the "Diwan", an institution similar to a Parliament composed by the Taïfa of Raïs (sailors), the representatives of the tribes, the notables of the Cities and of sedentary villages, the Spahis (native soldiers) and the janissaries (soldiers sent by the Ottoman power). I would add that this institution accompanied Algiers from the beginning of its history to its end, only the political field of action of the Diwan varied depending on who was at the head of the government. In some periods, the Diwan was more powerful than the head of state (pachalik) and during the Deylik, the Dey was literally elected by the Diwan.
To sum up, I consider that using the title "Ottoman Algeria" as it's the case currently is the less appropriately choice. Using "Deylik of Algiers" as some have suggested would be better but not ideal, and using "State of Algiers" would be perfect.
I hope that the argues I presented in this text will contribute to reach a new consensus on the title of the article.
Best regards,
-- Sirroconouveau ( talk) 07:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Whatever748 ( talk) 01:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
hi I saw your article about Regency Algeria and saw that there was some fraud Since there are old books that prove that it is called the regency of algiers/kingdom of algiers, and not Ottoman Algeria Where Ottoman Algiers was between 1515-1567 https://books.google.dz/books?id=l7RJlmYGhXkC&dq=regency%20of%20algiers%20kingdom%20country&hl=fr&pg=PA733#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.206.96.64 ( talk) 20:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
To Hamza3110022: the issue of splitting the article has been brought up here before and has elicited many opinions (see above), please discuss major proposals here instead of jumping the gun on your own by attempting to change the scope of this article and creating a separate unsourced article at Kingdom of Algiers (where did you even get that title?).
More generally, to all interested editors: this article currently does a poor job anyways of explaining and outlining the political status of Algiers across this period. This might be facilitating intermittent POV or OR pushes (in one direction or another) by new editors. The present infobox contains a timeline that isn't properly sourced (nor explained in the body of the article) and omits or contradicts what's described in reliable sources. For example, according to Abun-Nasr 1987 (pp. 153 and 159-160), Algiers had more autonomy than the article currently implies up to 1587, when a regular Ottoman provincial administration was installed, which roughly lasted up to 1659 when the Janissary aghas seized control and the Ottoman-appointed "pasha" retained only symbolic authority, then up to 1671 when a dey was elected locally, and then from 1711 the Ottomans simply recognized the local dey as pasha instead. There are other scholarly sources to consult and there's much more to elaborate, so please improve the article with a more objective reading of the sources and more careful consideration of Wikipedia's content policies. R Prazeres ( talk) 23:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
So i made modifications for the flag and the coat of arms of the kingdom of Algiers, and supported my modifications with no less than 13 reliable sources, apparently this was not enough somehow and M.bitton thinks a poorly single sourced flag (which is a port a flag actually) is sufficient enough, same goes for the coat of arms, I even provided pictures from my hometown Algiers for that matter. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 19:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
So based on what has been discussed with Mr R Prazeres and other users, i beleive thes the history section should be organized in a clearer, more chronological way, which should make it easier for readers to follow and easier for editors to expand, Also there are sections that should be improved as well: Mideterranean pivateers : More should be added to this section, this was the iron head of the spear of the Algerian military doctrine, what could be added to it is the way Algiers conducts its foreign relations, the earlier and the latter depended heavily on eachother, the minister of the marine of algiers (wakil al kharaj) was also the foreign affairs minister and assumed his position from the port of Algiers (Cezayirli Hasan pasha as an example) the Janissary Revolution: the Agha period and early dey period is a very important phase in Algerian early modern history yet often overlooked, because the Janissary revolution of 1659 was a turning point in the emancipation of Algiers from ottoman suzrainty, the end of the Pasha rule in Algiers marked the end of the ottoman interference in Algerine politics both internally and externally, and this had impacts on Algiers itself and its relations with european powers, what Ali chaouch dey did 50 years later in 1710 was manly ending a period of trouble and coups and sending the pasha home since he was just a figurehead with no power whatsoever and also weakened a bit the authority of the divan of Algiers (the divan was the main instrument of Algerian politics and i beleive it's what characterises the republican aspect of the state, so its section should be expanded a lot ), Ottoman Algerian hisory should be devided in two parts : the actual ottoman rule in Algiers period with various degrees of autonomy; and the second period: the quasi-independent Algerian state, various sources describe Algiers as a Military republic (Hamdan ibn othman Khodja, Henri Delmas de Grammont, Aziz Samih Ilter, Laugier de Tassy, a short history of Algiers published in new york in 1805) since the Agha period, Algiers had multiple uprisings and faught many wars) the economy : Taxation (THE) second most important source of revenue for the Algerian state is not mentionned here, it should be added with details the Administration : it needs to be expanded, and a "Dey" section should be added because it can be confusing to hear this word being mentionned many times without actually understanding what is it about and its political status vis a vis the ottoman porte , the section "Political Status" should be removed in my opinion. other sections should be added like the city of Algiers, often viewed as the most powerful and diverse city in the barbary region a section about the war with spain (1776-1784) should be added in History section, this war led to the liberation of Oran city from spain, it was celebrated by algerian historians of the time, like ibn Ruqaya al tilimsani in his book (Al Zahra Nayyira) i would like to the discuss about the official flag of Algiers, as i have many sources + paintings about it which strongly disagrees with the one being put in this article (even if i aknowledge how famous it is). i'm Open to all suggestion. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 21:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't really have any objection to the following but it is uncited and I am not entirely sure what it says. I think it means that Barberousse transported refugees from Andalusia to Algiers, but the grammar is tangled and goes beyond my willingness to guess meanings. After settling in Jijel, Oruç and his brothers took care of persecuted Muslims in Andalusia, so they began frequenting their fleets on the shores of Andalusia and were transported to North Africa
Frequenting is definitely the wrong word in this context and it doesn't seem integral to the narrative. I don't mind finding a place for it if someone can explain it to me, and since we are here, provide a citation. @
Nourerrahmane: I noticed you are watching the page. Please do let me know if I introduce any errors of fact, and if you read Arabic or know somebody who does, you will greatly improve the ability of speakers of European languages to verify your content if you will translate the titles of the Arabic-language references. Sources in Arabic (or French, or Spanish) are acceptable but English is preferred if available. If those are the ones you have because this is a translation, though, I understand having been there myself. Just saying, at the moment I am taking the Arabic-language sources on faith.
On the whole though, good work.
It also seems to me that there are some stubs floating around WP:PNT about battles in this period in Morocco or Algeria that may be relevant. It has been a while and I haven't checked since I noticed this one, but I will look into that if you like. Pretty sure Beni Abbes is mentioned in some of them, for example. I am done for the evening as there is other stuff I have said I would do, but I will be back. PS: if this is a translation it should be tagged as such for compliance with copyright law, which is no big deal to do -- I can do it for you if you let me know -- but is nonetheless mandatory. Let's not be the editors who get Wikipedia into trouble ;) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Elinruby ( talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
this term is introduced very early in the article and not explained until much later. It probably warrants its own section but pending any other comments about organization that may arise as to the order of the sections, a sentence or two of explanation should be added the first time it is mentioned. Elinruby ( talk) 12:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree at all with most of what Abus nasr had to bring about Ottoman Algeria -refusing to call the Ottoman Algerian elite as Algerian, he uses the word Turk instead even after the separation of 1659, though i agree that the political elite was "Turkish in origin" it was politically Algerian, saying turks and Algerians while speaking about internal matters is fallacious at best, on foreign politics it is even worst.
-calling the Algerian spanish peace of 1786 a "stalemate" even after spain losing its entire Algerian holding, sustaining a defeat in 1775 and the failed bombings of 1783 and 1784 with spain paying one million pesos for peace...
-stating that decline of the Algerian state (he literally refuses to use this word, rather he calls it the Dey regime") in second half of 18th century, this is totally false, these wwere the bright years of the rule of Muhammed bin Othman pasha who ruled for over 25 years, despite Abu nasr using al Zahar book he totally ignored this important Dey which all known Algerian sources depict as the best Dey of Algiers
-too much focus on the revolts of the Darqaoua, as if the history of ottoman Algeria spinned around these events, while they are important since it showcased the need for reforms, it's weird to have given so much details on this matter while disregarding others totally
-saying that the deys didn't not rule the country except towns, and that the city of Algiers fell and not the whole country because the deys controlled only the capital puts the cherry on top of this biased middle eastern superficial and fallacious view on Algerian history, as if it wanted to push a certain view about Ottoman Rule in the middle east on Algeria itself, which led to those big mistakes. neverthenless i still used this book on some subjects such as taxes and goverment type Nourerrahmane ( talk) 02:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
the religious tariqas, also known as sufi orders like the Qadiris and the darqawis and tijanis, played an important part in the regency’s existence, they helped the Barbarossa brothers establish the state, and were the true link between authorities and tribes, they had their share of naval spoils and could unleash big revolts. The andalusians were the main paragons of cultural life in cities like Algiers, tlemcen, constantina, and medea. The turks, despite being a ruling military elite, also had their share of cultural influence. All this mix shaped the cultural identity of contemporary Algeria. What do the much respected gentleman here think about this ? Nourerrahmane ( talk) 20:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
So, i beleive i covered the political and economical aspect of Ottoman Algeria to better understand its developpement and its character while moving some large subtopics such as the battle of mostaganem in 1558 and Bougie 1555 to other articles, the wars covered in the article were the most important since they always had new notable consequences on the Regency. I focused mostly on their background and their aftermath while summerising some important events, and i also did some reorganization in some sections to better understand the corsairing diplomacy that Algiers imposed in the mediterranean. I was about to add a "Culture" section but i'm open for suggestions. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 15:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The IP here is partly correct. Commentary and analysis, even if otherwise valid, should come directly from reliable sources, rather than from editors. Verifiability really needs to be consistent throughout the article, so citations are needed here to authors who state this point directly.
Separately, having a long quote is also unusual in the lead, as the lead should be a straight-to-the-point summary (see MOS:LEAD). I've moved this content, provisionally, to a "legacy" section ( [8]). This section could be retained as a place for discussing retrospective analyses or long-term consequences of the Regency's existence or its end, etc; or this material can be moved again to another appropriate part of the article instead. (Either way is fine by me.) R Prazeres ( talk) 17:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
This coat of arms was used in the colonial period in the kingdom of Algiers, for the motto it is the motto of Algiers not the whole kingdom/ the red and yellow stripes flag was used more often it's better to use it rather than this one Algeriancorsair ( talk) 15:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
So i followed a little debate about what was the official title of the Regency of Algiers in English and French Sources, including official correspondances and maps and treaties, the word "Kingdom" is very much present in English sources such as here https://archive.org/details/sketchesofalgier00shal/page/n13/mode/2up and here https://archive.org/details/ashorthistoryal00duycgoog/page/n30/mode/2up and these Ottoman maps: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Cedid_Atlas_%28Europe%29_1803.jpg and https://www.alamyimages.fr/en-turc-piri-reis-1465-1555-feuille-a-partir-du-livre-sur-la-navigation-l-17eme-18eme-siecle-l-encre-la-peinture-et-l-or-sur-papier-walters-art-museum-w658-64a-acquis-par-henry-walters-w658-64un-piri-reis-1004-carte-de-l-europe-de-l-ouest-et-afrique-du-nord-walters-w65864a-page-complete-image185548427.html The word is also present in Official corrependances here : https://www.cnplet.dz/images/bibliotheque/Autres/Correspondance-des-Deys-d-Alger-avec-la-Cour-de-France-Tome-1.pdf Leaving "Ottoman Algeria" as the Big title could be misleading, i'm not saying we should remove the Ottoman "Affiliation" of Algiers, but we should put a historically accurate political status as a title, like "Kingdom of Algiers", of course this has to go through a consencus. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 20:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that the proposed title is more accurate and more common. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 12:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Ottoman Algeria → Regency of Algiers – Per WP:COMMONNAME. As discused above, the current name is not wrong, but the most common designation for Ottoman Algeria in reliable English sources is "Regency of Algiers" or "Ottoman Regency of Algiers"; e.g. Abun-Nasr (p.151 and after), McDougall (p.11), Naylor (p.7 or 109), Blili. Also supported by ngram. R Prazeres ( talk) 02:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I propose that the article, similarly to the Tunisian ones ( Ottoman Tunisia, Beylik of Tunis) be split into two separate part. Following a coup in 1671, Ottoman authority was reduced to a ceremonial role [1], and Algiers from there on continued to be independent, or in some cases quasi-independent from the Ottoman Empire. We could also separate the article at 1710 since that's when Algiers first became De Facto independent under the rule of Baba Ali Chaouche [2]. The new page should be called the Deylik of Algiers. I can provide further citations if needed. Whatever748 ( talk) 18:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Just a recommendation for the political status description in the "Government" section of the infobox: I think it's gotten a little too complicated and jargon-y for the average reader. I personally know these terms, but most people don't know what Pashalik, Aghalik, Deylik, etc mean, and because these are titles imbued with different practical powers in different contexts/periods, it may not provide much immediate understanding either.
We could probably simplify this into fewer historical phases focusing on the most significant shifts, and summarize in more common English words where possible, which is more in keeping with the purpose of MOS:INFOBOX. Alternatively, of course, we could replace most of this with something like "See Political status section below", if it seems too difficult to simplify while remaining reasonably accurate. I'm open to what others think.
This part also relies a little too much on interpreting primary sources or other 19th century sources, whereas the situation is described clearly and fairly succinctly in more current secondary sources. Primary sources can still be useful for many details, but for most information we should be prioritizing what secondary sources say, per WP:PST. For example, see the brief summary I left at this discussion above about what several reliable secondary sources; they're generally in agreement about an outline of political phases that's not too hard to understand. R Prazeres ( talk) 23:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What exactly do you want to achieve by your nationalist editing? As i said, the official Arabic name is إيالة الجزائر ('Eyalat al-Jaza'ir'). I know that the name is of turkish origin but that doesn't mean it's not used in Arabic. All what you have to do is to check the Arabic version of the article. but if you wanted to put the official Turkish name then put it, i have no objections. Pickle Rick 02 ( talk) 10:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
To begin, I'm sorry for any disruptions caused by me in the last days. I've spent the last 7 days reading Wikipedia core policies and now I can say I have a general idea of how Wikipedia works.
There seems to be some problems in the lead section and in the infobox:
1. Use of primary sources in the lead section:
The lead section is supposed to be a concise summary of the content of the article. The use of primary sources in the lead, usually dating back to the 19th century, doesn't fit with Wikipedia policies. Worse than that the sources seem to be cherry-picked, and even more concerning, misrepresented.
2. The maps:
The maps shown in the infobox derive from primary sources, and they contain factual inaccuracies. For instance, the depiction of the Tafilalt region as part of the regency is erroneous. Furthermore, certain maps, such as the one found on the French Wikipedia, erroneously suggest that the regency borders the Atlantic Ocean, which is clearly nonsensical. Fortunately, we have reliable secondary modern sources that provide reliable historical maps. E.g Atals of Islamic history (Page 68) and أطلس تاريخ الإسلام
I will highlight some other issues once this thread comes to a conclusion. Cheers, Pickle Rick ✌️ ( talk) 13:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@ M.Bitton: Have you read/checked the sources or not? Pickle Rick ✌️ ( talk) 17:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Nourerrahmane: I didn't answer you yesterday as I was quite worried with yesterday's earthquake.
Here are some facts: The Tuat region was part of the Moroccan Bilad-es-Siba, and before the French conquest of Algeria, the region was Nominally Moroccan. See page 23 and 24 here and the map in page 68 of Atlas of Islamic history suggests the exact same thing. Even your primary source says: "Le sultan du Maroc; déjà suzerain spirituel du Touat", btw that was the reason why I said that you were cherry-picking, and i stand by what i said. Not to mention that your sources are primary, and even worse that that, non-neutral as they're presenting French colonial POV. (The French were aiming to control Tuat and they had to find excuses for that). Pickle Rick ✌️ ( talk) 19:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
SPA has been shown the way to the exit. Canterbury Tail talk 02:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
looking at this source [16] 125-148, one might wonder if Algiers could actually be considered as such, didn't knew that Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu spoke about the government of the Regency. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 19:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
the same template, History of modern states of oto.... is repeated twice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzlinker ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
As it has been the case since 2011, some users keep pushing their PoV making Algeria a kind of independent state before 1830 while, as it is commonly admitted by historians and historiography, the Regency of Algiers was an Ottoman province -no matter how autonomous it was, as it was also the case of all Ottoman Eyalets.
Note that this issue was previously discussed and disruptive editors blocked on ANI ( 1, 2 & 3)
-- Omar-toons ( talk) 00:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
the Ottoman regency of Algiers was transformed into a sort of military republic when the troops stationed there rebelled against the Ottoman governor in 1689 and installed one of their officers as ruler, giving him the title of dey (maternal uncle). The Ottoman troops thus emerged as a ruling caste that periodically renewed itself with fresh recruits from various parts of the Mediterranean region. The deys, chosen from within this caste, governed Algeria independently from the Ottoman government. They retained religious ties to the Ottoman sultan, however, by recognizing him as caliph and by making the Ḥanafī school of law—the official school of the Ottoman Empire—the official school of law in Algeria as well.
The Turkish presence in Algeria lasted from 1555 to 1830.
After centuries as both the westernmost province of the Ottoman Empire and a base for the Barbary pirates, Algeria was invaded and colonized by the French in 1830.
When the French turned their eyes to the kingdom of Algiers in 1830, the region had been under Ottoman rule since 1516. The Regency of Algiers was a province of the Ottoman empire under the authority of the dey of Algiers, who had acquired a large degree of autonomy from the sultan and who was chosen by Janissaries, the Ottoman militia of Algiers.
[In 1671] Ottoman Algeria became a military republic, ruled in the name of the Ottoman sultan by officers chosen by and in the interest of the Ujaq.
So I got interested in reading about some North African Ottoman history in this summer and I find it interesting that Hayreddin asked for Selim 1 protection in 1519 by sending him a petition from the Algerian population for protection in Late 1519 about October or November, after few months he received an official decree and was given the title of Beylerbey, provided him with 2,000 Janisarries and 4,000 Levantines. It was absorbed to the Empire in 1520, COINS were Struck Firday Khutba was made to the Caliph. Anyone who knows basic History would realize that this is asign of allegiance in kingdoms in Islam were you make a Khutba to the Ruler and struck coin an example would be Saladin making the Khutba towards the Abbasid Caliph.
I think we can safely remove the c.1517 sign, Oruc was never part of the Empire. This grey period was just some pirates ruling between 1517 and 1520, but many sources will never go to detail and say that 1516/1517 is when Ottoman started controlling Algeria which is wrong. Anyone agree with me? Alexis Ivanov ( talk) 02:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Aṭlas ( talk · contribs)
1)I don't understand why you cancel my contribs, better referenced than what was previously written. Moreover in the previous references there is a misappropriation of books because it is used to justify elements that are not dealt with in any way by the authors (in exemple the ottoman flag). On subjects as complicated as statutes or historical emblems the recommendations of Wikipedia require the use of a bibliography centered on the subject (the books on the history of Algeria or the regency of Algiers).
Historiography is rather polluted by terms derived from 19th historians who often recopy terms derived from colonial bias. This is why the contributions of modern historians (Kaddache, Meynier, Ghalem, Remaoun, Boyer, C-A Julien ...) are more neutral. I invite you to see the bibliography on the article of the French wikipedia which can serve as model.
2)The title Ottoman Algeria is not the most notorious, it is the regency of Algiers which seems most dependent in scholarly literature. 366 occurrences in Google Books for "ottoman algeria" vs 9940 occurrences in Google Books for "regency of algiers". In the recommendation of WP, the title must be the most notorious. Thank you, Kabyle20 ( talk) 23:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller, Aṭlas, and Surena20:
Hi, How can you support a version that contradicts the references? In the book of Abun nasr, p.151 and 152 ; the country is called "regency of Algiers" and the map is centered on the regency and not on the rest of the Empire. There is already a misinterpretation of the reference on this point. Then on the francophone wikipedia there has already been a discussion on this subject. This discussion made it possible to highlight references of quality centered on the subject. Like the historians Mahfoud Kaddache, Lemnouar merouche, and Gilbert Meynier. I will not quote here all the sentences, the references are available in history of the article and in the francophone page.
I would just quote Hassan Ramaoun historian at the Oran CRASC which summarizes quite well the opinion of various authors: "The Algerian State is undoubtedly an independent and sovereign entity, responding to the current definitions of international law, traditional conditions (territory, human community, public authority, effective independence, international recognition ) are largely united. The Turks managed to give the central Maghreb a geopolitical autonomy sufficient to differentiate them from neighboring countries (Collective coordinated by Hassan Ramaoun, Algeria: history, society and culture, Casbah Editions, 2000).
There is a consensus on several points: the name (Regency of Algiers), besides the current version is in contradiction with its own sources, the fact that the regency is a state and a rapid political description (organization, beylik ect. ..). Removing all this information without explanation and without bothering to open a book to understand them is simply vandalism. For the map it was approved by the historian Jean Louis Triaud who had participated in a controversy by giving his expert opinion at the request of a mediator of WP:fr ; Apart from this approval it is based on the euratlas historical background map and the works indicated in the description of Common. Thank you for replying by sources please. Best regards, Kabyle20 ( talk) 09:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
M.Bitton stop this edit war now !!!! whats wrong with my map since it refer to the same year 1771 ???. -- 41.248.118.204 ( talk) 22:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Kabz15,
you keep creating and inserting maps that show Morocco or parts of Morocco as part of Ottoman Algeria, which as already explained above is both inconsistent with any reliable history book and inconsistent with the text of the article itself. Your
latest map (which I just removed) says it includes a list of "sources" in the corner, but that list is almost illegible and doesn't include full bibliographical details so neither myself or anyone can verify it. It also doesn't explain how you determined the territorial limits of brief Ottoman incursions to the west and doesn't make up for the obvious vagueness of the information presented. There is already a map in the first section of this page that shows many of the Ottoman campaigns into Morocco in a non-misleading way, with more precision, and with a list of sources; so in fact I don't see why any other map is needed along these lines, especially if its singular purpose seems to be to push a certain point of view.
Also worrying is this edit today where you copied information from this page, including some of the sources, to another page but presented it in an incomplete way and with less context (along with your map). You've made edits with a similar POV in the past, such as this one and this one. Please be more careful and don't represent information from sources in an incomplete, selective, or deceptive way that leads readers to a particular viewpoint that you favour (i.e. that Morocco was annexed or controlled by the Ottoman Empire). This could be seen as pushing Fringe views on the encyclopedia. Please review Wikipedia's policies on Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and Original research. Thanks, R Prazeres ( talk) 23:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The sources included on the map highlight that the Regency under Salah Rais conquered Morocco up until Fez in 1554 and added these territories to the Ottoman crown or extended the border to Morocco [1] [2] [3]
The others source highlight how Morocco recognised the Ottoman-Algerian sovereignty over eastern Morocco after the Battle of Moulouya [4]
These are significant events that happened during the history of Ottoman Algeria which is why they’ve been included. Furthermore, the western “border” is not the border, these are the conquests which are shown in a slightly darker red colour. The Regency of Algiers did conquer these regions so what’s shown in the map under conquests has been validated and so has the justification for the addition of this map itself. The map simply shows conquests and raids and gives a more detailed view of these events which are not touched on as much in the other maps. In fact the other maps are quite vague and not detailed enough which is why I decide to add this map as it is more detailed, precise and includes much more information. Thanks, ( Kabz15 ( talk) 10:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC))
Well the difference between the Tlemcen battle and the battles in which the Moroccan regions were captured is that those were victories and sovereignty was actually established there for a brief while via the Wattasid sultans vassalage in the Kingdom of Fez and a treaty which acknowledged the sovereignty in the eastern part of Morocco. Also the border did briefly extend to these regions as confirmed by the sources. The presence in eastern Morocco itself was not exactly brief either and there are maps that do acknowledge these borders, however I do agree with your point that the “borders” seem to be misleading. As a result I’ve uploaded a new map making it clear that these regions were only briefly captured. Thanks, ( Kabz15 ( talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC))
Hi @ Kabz15: is there any good confirmation about those two exclaves in the south, in yourmap ? I think the regions are adrar and ain salah. Because apparently from what I've seen except from the expedition of salah reis, being that far away deep in tge south they were just abondonned for the local tribes untill the french colonisation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyhgfthj ( talk • contribs) 18 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Hello to everyone,
I'm writing this message to share my opinion about an aspect of this article. Indeed, I think that the title should be changed. "Ottoman Algeria" defines the real status of the State of Algiers only during a particular phase of its history (namely the period when the government was ruled by a Beylerbey sent by the Ottoman caliph). Going from the revolution of the Deys in 1671 and more from the reign of Baba Ali Chaouch, the State of Algiers was politically and military independent of the Ottoman Empire, so, we can't really consider that as an "Ottoman" period as would suggest the current title.
My suggestion is the next : The best title would be "State of Algiers". Some people have considered that the term "Deylik of Algiers" would fit better with the subject. I share this opinion, it would effectively be more appropriated to use it. However, stills that it is not the better designation possible. As a matter of fact, using "Deylik of Algiers" would be great if we were talking only about the period between 1671 and 1830, when the State was ruled by the Deys. That would not include the autonomous eras of the Sultanate (from 1515 to 1533) and the Pachalik (from 1577 to 1671), and evidently the really "ottoman" period of the Beylik.
Also, you might know, maybe after reading what's above, that the period of the Beylik is a minor phase of the State of Algiers, from a chronological point of view. So, in my opinion, the current title contributes to reduce the whole modern period of Algeria to a minor part of its political history, which is damageable.
The term "State of Algiers" is the best because it includes all the eras that been through Algeria during its modern period, independently of its relation with the Ottoman Empire, but only depending on its government. Effectively, this one always took the aspect of a military republic, essentially ruled by the "Diwan", an institution similar to a Parliament composed by the Taïfa of Raïs (sailors), the representatives of the tribes, the notables of the Cities and of sedentary villages, the Spahis (native soldiers) and the janissaries (soldiers sent by the Ottoman power). I would add that this institution accompanied Algiers from the beginning of its history to its end, only the political field of action of the Diwan varied depending on who was at the head of the government. In some periods, the Diwan was more powerful than the head of state (pachalik) and during the Deylik, the Dey was literally elected by the Diwan.
To sum up, I consider that using the title "Ottoman Algeria" as it's the case currently is the less appropriately choice. Using "Deylik of Algiers" as some have suggested would be better but not ideal, and using "State of Algiers" would be perfect.
I hope that the argues I presented in this text will contribute to reach a new consensus on the title of the article.
Best regards,
-- Sirroconouveau ( talk) 07:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Whatever748 ( talk) 01:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
hi I saw your article about Regency Algeria and saw that there was some fraud Since there are old books that prove that it is called the regency of algiers/kingdom of algiers, and not Ottoman Algeria Where Ottoman Algiers was between 1515-1567 https://books.google.dz/books?id=l7RJlmYGhXkC&dq=regency%20of%20algiers%20kingdom%20country&hl=fr&pg=PA733#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.206.96.64 ( talk) 20:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
To Hamza3110022: the issue of splitting the article has been brought up here before and has elicited many opinions (see above), please discuss major proposals here instead of jumping the gun on your own by attempting to change the scope of this article and creating a separate unsourced article at Kingdom of Algiers (where did you even get that title?).
More generally, to all interested editors: this article currently does a poor job anyways of explaining and outlining the political status of Algiers across this period. This might be facilitating intermittent POV or OR pushes (in one direction or another) by new editors. The present infobox contains a timeline that isn't properly sourced (nor explained in the body of the article) and omits or contradicts what's described in reliable sources. For example, according to Abun-Nasr 1987 (pp. 153 and 159-160), Algiers had more autonomy than the article currently implies up to 1587, when a regular Ottoman provincial administration was installed, which roughly lasted up to 1659 when the Janissary aghas seized control and the Ottoman-appointed "pasha" retained only symbolic authority, then up to 1671 when a dey was elected locally, and then from 1711 the Ottomans simply recognized the local dey as pasha instead. There are other scholarly sources to consult and there's much more to elaborate, so please improve the article with a more objective reading of the sources and more careful consideration of Wikipedia's content policies. R Prazeres ( talk) 23:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
So i made modifications for the flag and the coat of arms of the kingdom of Algiers, and supported my modifications with no less than 13 reliable sources, apparently this was not enough somehow and M.bitton thinks a poorly single sourced flag (which is a port a flag actually) is sufficient enough, same goes for the coat of arms, I even provided pictures from my hometown Algiers for that matter. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 19:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
So based on what has been discussed with Mr R Prazeres and other users, i beleive thes the history section should be organized in a clearer, more chronological way, which should make it easier for readers to follow and easier for editors to expand, Also there are sections that should be improved as well: Mideterranean pivateers : More should be added to this section, this was the iron head of the spear of the Algerian military doctrine, what could be added to it is the way Algiers conducts its foreign relations, the earlier and the latter depended heavily on eachother, the minister of the marine of algiers (wakil al kharaj) was also the foreign affairs minister and assumed his position from the port of Algiers (Cezayirli Hasan pasha as an example) the Janissary Revolution: the Agha period and early dey period is a very important phase in Algerian early modern history yet often overlooked, because the Janissary revolution of 1659 was a turning point in the emancipation of Algiers from ottoman suzrainty, the end of the Pasha rule in Algiers marked the end of the ottoman interference in Algerine politics both internally and externally, and this had impacts on Algiers itself and its relations with european powers, what Ali chaouch dey did 50 years later in 1710 was manly ending a period of trouble and coups and sending the pasha home since he was just a figurehead with no power whatsoever and also weakened a bit the authority of the divan of Algiers (the divan was the main instrument of Algerian politics and i beleive it's what characterises the republican aspect of the state, so its section should be expanded a lot ), Ottoman Algerian hisory should be devided in two parts : the actual ottoman rule in Algiers period with various degrees of autonomy; and the second period: the quasi-independent Algerian state, various sources describe Algiers as a Military republic (Hamdan ibn othman Khodja, Henri Delmas de Grammont, Aziz Samih Ilter, Laugier de Tassy, a short history of Algiers published in new york in 1805) since the Agha period, Algiers had multiple uprisings and faught many wars) the economy : Taxation (THE) second most important source of revenue for the Algerian state is not mentionned here, it should be added with details the Administration : it needs to be expanded, and a "Dey" section should be added because it can be confusing to hear this word being mentionned many times without actually understanding what is it about and its political status vis a vis the ottoman porte , the section "Political Status" should be removed in my opinion. other sections should be added like the city of Algiers, often viewed as the most powerful and diverse city in the barbary region a section about the war with spain (1776-1784) should be added in History section, this war led to the liberation of Oran city from spain, it was celebrated by algerian historians of the time, like ibn Ruqaya al tilimsani in his book (Al Zahra Nayyira) i would like to the discuss about the official flag of Algiers, as i have many sources + paintings about it which strongly disagrees with the one being put in this article (even if i aknowledge how famous it is). i'm Open to all suggestion. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 21:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't really have any objection to the following but it is uncited and I am not entirely sure what it says. I think it means that Barberousse transported refugees from Andalusia to Algiers, but the grammar is tangled and goes beyond my willingness to guess meanings. After settling in Jijel, Oruç and his brothers took care of persecuted Muslims in Andalusia, so they began frequenting their fleets on the shores of Andalusia and were transported to North Africa
Frequenting is definitely the wrong word in this context and it doesn't seem integral to the narrative. I don't mind finding a place for it if someone can explain it to me, and since we are here, provide a citation. @
Nourerrahmane: I noticed you are watching the page. Please do let me know if I introduce any errors of fact, and if you read Arabic or know somebody who does, you will greatly improve the ability of speakers of European languages to verify your content if you will translate the titles of the Arabic-language references. Sources in Arabic (or French, or Spanish) are acceptable but English is preferred if available. If those are the ones you have because this is a translation, though, I understand having been there myself. Just saying, at the moment I am taking the Arabic-language sources on faith.
On the whole though, good work.
It also seems to me that there are some stubs floating around WP:PNT about battles in this period in Morocco or Algeria that may be relevant. It has been a while and I haven't checked since I noticed this one, but I will look into that if you like. Pretty sure Beni Abbes is mentioned in some of them, for example. I am done for the evening as there is other stuff I have said I would do, but I will be back. PS: if this is a translation it should be tagged as such for compliance with copyright law, which is no big deal to do -- I can do it for you if you let me know -- but is nonetheless mandatory. Let's not be the editors who get Wikipedia into trouble ;) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Elinruby ( talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
this term is introduced very early in the article and not explained until much later. It probably warrants its own section but pending any other comments about organization that may arise as to the order of the sections, a sentence or two of explanation should be added the first time it is mentioned. Elinruby ( talk) 12:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree at all with most of what Abus nasr had to bring about Ottoman Algeria -refusing to call the Ottoman Algerian elite as Algerian, he uses the word Turk instead even after the separation of 1659, though i agree that the political elite was "Turkish in origin" it was politically Algerian, saying turks and Algerians while speaking about internal matters is fallacious at best, on foreign politics it is even worst.
-calling the Algerian spanish peace of 1786 a "stalemate" even after spain losing its entire Algerian holding, sustaining a defeat in 1775 and the failed bombings of 1783 and 1784 with spain paying one million pesos for peace...
-stating that decline of the Algerian state (he literally refuses to use this word, rather he calls it the Dey regime") in second half of 18th century, this is totally false, these wwere the bright years of the rule of Muhammed bin Othman pasha who ruled for over 25 years, despite Abu nasr using al Zahar book he totally ignored this important Dey which all known Algerian sources depict as the best Dey of Algiers
-too much focus on the revolts of the Darqaoua, as if the history of ottoman Algeria spinned around these events, while they are important since it showcased the need for reforms, it's weird to have given so much details on this matter while disregarding others totally
-saying that the deys didn't not rule the country except towns, and that the city of Algiers fell and not the whole country because the deys controlled only the capital puts the cherry on top of this biased middle eastern superficial and fallacious view on Algerian history, as if it wanted to push a certain view about Ottoman Rule in the middle east on Algeria itself, which led to those big mistakes. neverthenless i still used this book on some subjects such as taxes and goverment type Nourerrahmane ( talk) 02:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
the religious tariqas, also known as sufi orders like the Qadiris and the darqawis and tijanis, played an important part in the regency’s existence, they helped the Barbarossa brothers establish the state, and were the true link between authorities and tribes, they had their share of naval spoils and could unleash big revolts. The andalusians were the main paragons of cultural life in cities like Algiers, tlemcen, constantina, and medea. The turks, despite being a ruling military elite, also had their share of cultural influence. All this mix shaped the cultural identity of contemporary Algeria. What do the much respected gentleman here think about this ? Nourerrahmane ( talk) 20:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
So, i beleive i covered the political and economical aspect of Ottoman Algeria to better understand its developpement and its character while moving some large subtopics such as the battle of mostaganem in 1558 and Bougie 1555 to other articles, the wars covered in the article were the most important since they always had new notable consequences on the Regency. I focused mostly on their background and their aftermath while summerising some important events, and i also did some reorganization in some sections to better understand the corsairing diplomacy that Algiers imposed in the mediterranean. I was about to add a "Culture" section but i'm open for suggestions. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 15:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The IP here is partly correct. Commentary and analysis, even if otherwise valid, should come directly from reliable sources, rather than from editors. Verifiability really needs to be consistent throughout the article, so citations are needed here to authors who state this point directly.
Separately, having a long quote is also unusual in the lead, as the lead should be a straight-to-the-point summary (see MOS:LEAD). I've moved this content, provisionally, to a "legacy" section ( [8]). This section could be retained as a place for discussing retrospective analyses or long-term consequences of the Regency's existence or its end, etc; or this material can be moved again to another appropriate part of the article instead. (Either way is fine by me.) R Prazeres ( talk) 17:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
This coat of arms was used in the colonial period in the kingdom of Algiers, for the motto it is the motto of Algiers not the whole kingdom/ the red and yellow stripes flag was used more often it's better to use it rather than this one Algeriancorsair ( talk) 15:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
So i followed a little debate about what was the official title of the Regency of Algiers in English and French Sources, including official correspondances and maps and treaties, the word "Kingdom" is very much present in English sources such as here https://archive.org/details/sketchesofalgier00shal/page/n13/mode/2up and here https://archive.org/details/ashorthistoryal00duycgoog/page/n30/mode/2up and these Ottoman maps: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Cedid_Atlas_%28Europe%29_1803.jpg and https://www.alamyimages.fr/en-turc-piri-reis-1465-1555-feuille-a-partir-du-livre-sur-la-navigation-l-17eme-18eme-siecle-l-encre-la-peinture-et-l-or-sur-papier-walters-art-museum-w658-64a-acquis-par-henry-walters-w658-64un-piri-reis-1004-carte-de-l-europe-de-l-ouest-et-afrique-du-nord-walters-w65864a-page-complete-image185548427.html The word is also present in Official corrependances here : https://www.cnplet.dz/images/bibliotheque/Autres/Correspondance-des-Deys-d-Alger-avec-la-Cour-de-France-Tome-1.pdf Leaving "Ottoman Algeria" as the Big title could be misleading, i'm not saying we should remove the Ottoman "Affiliation" of Algiers, but we should put a historically accurate political status as a title, like "Kingdom of Algiers", of course this has to go through a consencus. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 20:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that the proposed title is more accurate and more common. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 12:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Ottoman Algeria → Regency of Algiers – Per WP:COMMONNAME. As discused above, the current name is not wrong, but the most common designation for Ottoman Algeria in reliable English sources is "Regency of Algiers" or "Ottoman Regency of Algiers"; e.g. Abun-Nasr (p.151 and after), McDougall (p.11), Naylor (p.7 or 109), Blili. Also supported by ngram. R Prazeres ( talk) 02:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I propose that the article, similarly to the Tunisian ones ( Ottoman Tunisia, Beylik of Tunis) be split into two separate part. Following a coup in 1671, Ottoman authority was reduced to a ceremonial role [1], and Algiers from there on continued to be independent, or in some cases quasi-independent from the Ottoman Empire. We could also separate the article at 1710 since that's when Algiers first became De Facto independent under the rule of Baba Ali Chaouche [2]. The new page should be called the Deylik of Algiers. I can provide further citations if needed. Whatever748 ( talk) 18:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Just a recommendation for the political status description in the "Government" section of the infobox: I think it's gotten a little too complicated and jargon-y for the average reader. I personally know these terms, but most people don't know what Pashalik, Aghalik, Deylik, etc mean, and because these are titles imbued with different practical powers in different contexts/periods, it may not provide much immediate understanding either.
We could probably simplify this into fewer historical phases focusing on the most significant shifts, and summarize in more common English words where possible, which is more in keeping with the purpose of MOS:INFOBOX. Alternatively, of course, we could replace most of this with something like "See Political status section below", if it seems too difficult to simplify while remaining reasonably accurate. I'm open to what others think.
This part also relies a little too much on interpreting primary sources or other 19th century sources, whereas the situation is described clearly and fairly succinctly in more current secondary sources. Primary sources can still be useful for many details, but for most information we should be prioritizing what secondary sources say, per WP:PST. For example, see the brief summary I left at this discussion above about what several reliable secondary sources; they're generally in agreement about an outline of political phases that's not too hard to understand. R Prazeres ( talk) 23:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What exactly do you want to achieve by your nationalist editing? As i said, the official Arabic name is إيالة الجزائر ('Eyalat al-Jaza'ir'). I know that the name is of turkish origin but that doesn't mean it's not used in Arabic. All what you have to do is to check the Arabic version of the article. but if you wanted to put the official Turkish name then put it, i have no objections. Pickle Rick 02 ( talk) 10:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
To begin, I'm sorry for any disruptions caused by me in the last days. I've spent the last 7 days reading Wikipedia core policies and now I can say I have a general idea of how Wikipedia works.
There seems to be some problems in the lead section and in the infobox:
1. Use of primary sources in the lead section:
The lead section is supposed to be a concise summary of the content of the article. The use of primary sources in the lead, usually dating back to the 19th century, doesn't fit with Wikipedia policies. Worse than that the sources seem to be cherry-picked, and even more concerning, misrepresented.
2. The maps:
The maps shown in the infobox derive from primary sources, and they contain factual inaccuracies. For instance, the depiction of the Tafilalt region as part of the regency is erroneous. Furthermore, certain maps, such as the one found on the French Wikipedia, erroneously suggest that the regency borders the Atlantic Ocean, which is clearly nonsensical. Fortunately, we have reliable secondary modern sources that provide reliable historical maps. E.g Atals of Islamic history (Page 68) and أطلس تاريخ الإسلام
I will highlight some other issues once this thread comes to a conclusion. Cheers, Pickle Rick ✌️ ( talk) 13:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@ M.Bitton: Have you read/checked the sources or not? Pickle Rick ✌️ ( talk) 17:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Nourerrahmane: I didn't answer you yesterday as I was quite worried with yesterday's earthquake.
Here are some facts: The Tuat region was part of the Moroccan Bilad-es-Siba, and before the French conquest of Algeria, the region was Nominally Moroccan. See page 23 and 24 here and the map in page 68 of Atlas of Islamic history suggests the exact same thing. Even your primary source says: "Le sultan du Maroc; déjà suzerain spirituel du Touat", btw that was the reason why I said that you were cherry-picking, and i stand by what i said. Not to mention that your sources are primary, and even worse that that, non-neutral as they're presenting French colonial POV. (The French were aiming to control Tuat and they had to find excuses for that). Pickle Rick ✌️ ( talk) 19:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
SPA has been shown the way to the exit. Canterbury Tail talk 02:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
looking at this source [16] 125-148, one might wonder if Algiers could actually be considered as such, didn't knew that Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu spoke about the government of the Regency. Nourerrahmane ( talk) 19:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)