Talk:Algiers expedition (1541)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Algiers expedition (1541). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090818015845/http://www.neopodia.mobi/20090519-histoire-renaissance-alliance-impie-francois-1er-ier-ottoman-soliman-suleyman-charles-quint-forces-en-presence to http://www.neopodia.mobi/20090519-histoire-renaissance-alliance-impie-francois-1er-ier-ottoman-soliman-suleyman-charles-quint-forces-en-presence

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC
I launch a Request for comment about the Algiers regency's flag in 1541. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

According to others academic sources, the flag was different: --Panam2014 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Alexandre Rang, Histoire d'Aroudj et de Khaïr-ed-din. « le déploiement d'un grand drapeau national formé de trois bandes de soie, rouge, verte et jaune, et orné de croissant d'argent »
 * 2) Nadir Assari, Alger: des origines à la régence turque. « A l'époque turque, le drapeau d'Alger était formé de trois bandes de soie rouge, verte et jaune.  »
 * 3) Marius Bernard, L'Algérie qui s'en va. « Rien n'y manque, pas même la longue hampe où flotta si longtemps l'insolent drapeau de la régence avec ses trois bandes horizontales, jaune en bas, rouge en haut, vert au milieu. »
 * 4) Sander Rang,Ferdinand Denis,Jean-Michel Venture de Paradis, Fondation de la régence d'Alger: histoire des Barberousse, « ; c'était du haut de ses vastes terrasses sur lesquelles flottait l'étendard rouge, jaune et vert ».
 * 5) Mouloud Gaïd : L'Algerie sous les Turcs, p.58 : « Le grand drapeau d'Alger, formé de trois bandes de soie, rouge, verte, jaune, se déploya majestueusement au-dessus de la porte »"

*SupportI am fine with the flag being added to the infobox. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  20:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See also my tp. I have decided that having no image and a footnote, as described by Panam2014 below, is better. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  22:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, Mouloud Gaïd has based his work on Algiers expedition on Galibert's work (first published in 1844), so WP:AGE MATTERS applies too in this case. --Ms10vc (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also fine with the flag being added to the infobox. The majority of the sources cited above must be discarded for two reasons:
 * the flag they describe is not the one used in 1541, but the one used later. It's like trying to impose the actual US flag for some thing that happened between 1777 and 1795.
 * According to WP:AGE MATTERS, "newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt".

In a nutshell: --Ms10vc (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Alexandre Rang, Histoire d'Aroudj et de Khaïr-ed-din: Definitively not an academic source, but an outdated source according to WP:AGE MATTERS (published in 1837) ==>
 * 2) Nadir Assari: does not concern the flag used in 1541
 * 3) Marius Bernard, L'Algérie qui s'en va: Definitively not an academic source, but an outdated source according to WP:AGE MATTERS (published in 1887) ==>
 * 4) Sander Rang, Ferdinand Denis, Jean-Michel Venture de Paradis, Fondation de la régence d'Alger: histoire des Barberousse: Definitively not an academic source, but an outdated source according to WP:AGE MATTERS (published in 1837) ==>
 * 5) Mouloud Gaïd, L'Algerie sous les Turcs, p.58: Uses as a primary reference Léon Galibert's L'Algérie: ancienne et moderne, which is definitively not an academic source, but an outdated source according to WP:AGE MATTERS (first published in 1844) ==>
 * The facts are clear: the sources I have proposed are still considered secondary, they can not be reclassified into tertiary. So from this moment on, it is not possible to pretend that from the moment when there are more recent sources, they are more reliable. Thus, if an historian publishes an alternative theory after another historian, one can not say that one or the other is more right. On the other hand, because we have 10 sources and half of them are opposed, we can not defend one view rather than the other. So just do not put any flag and add a "footnote" to the article of the flags of Algeria to explain. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The rule est cristal clear. Once again, according to WP:AGE MATTERS, "newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt". So please stick to rule. Your personal opinion is charming but we are not interested with personal opinions. This source ==> "Houari Touati, Aux origines du drapeau algérien : une histoire symbolique, Editions Zaytūn, 2014, p. 38" is a recent one, centered on the subject and written by an academic specialist. Best regards. --Ms10vc (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I transfer you the relevant pages of the book of Houari Touati? You can read this article about it ==> . Touati is one of the best specialists of the Maghrebian Middle Age ==> . --Ms10vc (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So I ask Ms10vc to stop and stop pretending that this is only my opinion. For the rest, my two sources are recent and it does not matter if Touati is newer than them from the moment they did not become tertiary sources and that two sources (and not one) contradict Touati.

this book has been writed on 2007. And Mouloud Gaïd, the author  L'Algerie sous les Turcs died on 2000. So there is no evidence as to how was the flag and Gaid is also a great historian. Touati's opinion does not have the monopoly of historical truth. And for Touati, he used a traduction of Al Ghazavat. Moreover, even with a historian's description, it is not possible to draw a flag with the exact colors, proportions and orientations of the patterns orientation. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The facts are very clear: there is no source giving the flag for the regency of Algiers in 1541, just like the book by Houari Touati which speaks only of the modern period. Best regards ---  Alaspada  (discuter) 12:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I translated (mon Francais est petit) the page by Houari Touati. I have a question regarding the sentence:  the vexillary symbol of their collective identity has changed configuration repeatedly to take four, five, six different forms in only the first half of the twentieth century. Doesn't this prove that we don't know which exact flag to use? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  19:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello. In any case Ithink that your french is better than my english. The sentence is about the twentieth century, but our subject is the flag of the Algiers Regency in 1541. Touati has provided plenty of evidences about the flag. I have copied them below from another discussion in another wiki:
 * Ill. 29 – De stadt van Aelgier, 1541
 * Ill. 30 – La flotte de Khayr al-Din dans le port de Toulon, vers 1543
 * Ill. 31 – Portrait de Kayr Al-Dîn Pascha, vers 1580
 * Ill. 32 – Portulan (+ compléments), 1646
 * Ill. 34 — La cité, le port et le môle d'Alger, vers 1690
 * Please refer to this sentence in page 38: "Différentes gravures parmi les plus anciennes, comme celles qui restituent le siège d'Alger de 1541, attestent que l'emblème d'Alger est le rouge orné du croissant relevé par les Ghazaouat", which translates to : "Different engravings among the oldest ones, such as those restoring the siege of Algiers of 1541, attest that the emblem of Algiers is the red decorated with the crescent as noted by the Ghazaouat". Best regards --Ms10vc (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So that's right. Touati is based on a very ancient source, Al Ghazavat, which is now a tertiary source. In view of this, it is not possible to disqualify the other two recent sources on the pretext that they cite ancient sources. Or they are all disqualified. For the rest, only the first engraving is 1541. The others represent the flag at another time. In short always no source that allows to decide. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the sources given:
 * Ill. 29 – De stadt van Aelgier, 1541
 * Ill. 30 – La flotte de Khayr al-Din dans le port de Toulon, vers 1543
 * Ill. 31 – Portrait de Kayr Al-Dîn Pascha, vers 1580
 * Ill. 32 – Portulan (+ compléments), 1646
 * Ill. 34 — La cité, le port et le môle d'Alger, vers 1690
 * it is the flag or the banner of the Ottoman Empire, not that of the Regency of Algiers or speaks of a period that does not concern us (1646 or 1690).
 * Best regards ---  Alaspada  (discuter) 20:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Casualtie numbers
Hello @185.123.53.37

it seems that you have issue with number of casualties let me say this:

1) I did not make up those number, these number are according to the sources given in the reference section, and they are linked as well you can go to these links and check them, this page was created by (Per Honor et Gloria) and they had the same exact numbers as it can be seen here, but for some time they have been changed due to unknown reason, I only corrected them, check the history of editing.

2) how are these sources unreliable, on what basis? why do you think that?, give a clear explanation.

3) you are citing numbers that has no sources at all, you probably took these numbers from Spanish Wikipedia and it has no citation at all, these number are not mentioned in the Spanish article itself, instead it says Las pérdidas fueron muchas, pero no se contabilizaron, ni al parecer hubo voluntad de hacerlo, which says The losses were many, but they were not accounted for, and apparently there was no will to do so.

عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)