Talk:Hayreddin Barbarossa/Archive 1

To the writer of the text below
"But the names, begining from their father Yacub (English Jacob), Ishak (English Isaac), Illias (English Eliajah), Aruj ( English Aaron), Khidr (from Hebrew word Kheider which has a meaning Hebrew religious school) makes them forcefully converted to Islam Jews. To this conclusion we can arrive based on the following evidence: (a) they became privateers only after members of their family of tradesman was robbed, put in slavery, killed by Christian "Knights of Rhodes" as a some sort of a revanche; (b) so called Barbarian coast insluded modern Greece, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon with very large presence of Jewish tradesman and sailors; (c) Their nickname Barbarossa has a translation "barba" (red) + "rossa" (bird) because as high rank Jews in the Bible they got red hair birds which they, usually, colored with henna from India. Their heir on the head was light brown and the noses were distinct to a classic type of a Jew. Neither ordinary Turkes, nor Arabs or Greecs didn't have normally such look; (d) as we well know today, Islam always practised cultural genocide and everything what was good and admirable in converted to Islam people they tried to falsify as their own achievement. The same practice was very common in medieval Europe. Nobody ever bothered to analyze contradictions of their mythology because of Anti-Semitism shared by both religions."

This text is full of grammatical and semantic errors. And additionally, there is no reference to be associated with it. All the names of Barbarossa brothers were Islamic names. Of course, they have affinity with Hebrew names since both religions are semitic and have similar names and content to some extent. Moreover translation of "barbarossa" is wrong, barba means "beard" and rosso(a) means "red" in Italian. Furthermore, color of the beard or shape of the nose cannot determine one's ethnicity. I've got lots of Jewish acquaintances with different hair colors and various types of nose.

So, I invite the writer of this text to a discussion here. Otherwise, by a couple of days from now, I will have deleted this content.

Kizzuwatna 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I deleted the the text in question and wanted to make a note of the change here. The whole passage, apparently driven solely by the author's distress over what he sees as the "culturally genocidal" aspect of conversion, reads very unacademic, to put it mildly. If there is a credible hypothesis that Barbarossa is of Jewish origin, it may be noted in passing, as in: '... while others make him a Janissary from Vardar, near Thessaloniki, possibly of Sephardic Jewish origin.'

Gdeleuze 09:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the first time I hear of his allegedly Jewish origin. There is even no proof that his father was of devshirmeh background, let alone Jew. And we shouldn't forget that Sephardic Jews were majorly settled in the area after 1492.


 * Kizzuwatna 09:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
I'm proposing to move this page to Barbarossa, per Britannica and Columbia. However, since it's already a dab page perhaps something like Barbarossa (Ottoman), Barbarossa (Ottoman corsair), Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral), or Barbarossa (Ottoman privateer) would do. If there are no objections I will move this page in a weeks time. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with moving this page to Barbarossa, but i support renaming it as Barbaros Hayreddin Pasha. E104421 12:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But your suggestion gets a low amount of hits both on Google and Google Books. "Barbarossa" is what Britannica and Columbia use. &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that there is no need to move anything, since the disamb page already takes care of it.Cosal 22:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just going for a title that doesn't have "Khair ad Din" in it, that's all. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify: I'm proposing to move this page to Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral). Why? Because that's what Britannica and Columbia use, and this would solve the "Khair ad Din"/"Hayreddin" debate. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I support this proposal.. See William Jefferson Clinton, the article is titled Bill Clinton.. He has always been known all around europe for centuries as Barbarossa.. Full name will be given in the beginning of the intro, no need to mention hayreddin or khair id din (?!), simplicity people! Baristarim 03:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have other proposals, what about Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha, Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha), Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha (Ottoman Admiral), or Barbarossa (Ottoman Admiral Hayreddin Pasha)? E104421 12:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's too long. &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so let's go with Barbarossa (Ottoman Admiral)Cosal 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me! &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha) is better cause it not only has the nickname Barbarossa but also has the real name Hayreddin Pasha. E104421 07:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See Naming conventions (use English). It's Wikipedia policy to use the name someone or something is most known by in English, not the name he personally called himself. This is the same reason why we have the city the Germans call München at Munich. &mdash; Khoikhoi 07:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but in the case of Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha), it's written in paranthesis, then no problem. E104421 08:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I can only point you to Google. Your suggestion only gets 15 Google hits, and only 2 on Google books. &mdash; Khoikhoi 08:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you increase the number of names, you get less results in google search. I still support naming as Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha), by doing so we'll also correct the naming mistake. Sometimes we should put things right, although the majority believes otherwise because of lack of information. E104421 08:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you just said. The criteria for titles on Wikipedia is not what's "right", but what is most common. I need to get some sleep now. &mdash; Khoikhoi 08:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (crossed-out my own rudeness) &mdash; Khoikhoi 09:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, to get back on topic, I'd like to quote from WP:UE:

If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. For example, Christopher Columbus, Venice.

The most common name in English for this man is "Barbarossa". Although ife we wanted to be correct about things, the page should be at "Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa" or "Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha)". The thing is, we must remind ourselves that the policy is about frequency, not accuracy. I know how you feel, E104421. I would like to move Istanbul to it's proper Turkish spelling, İstanbul. However, the policy goes against me, in the same way it goes against you here. Just how the correct name for Christopher Columbus is Cristoforo Colombo, the former is his common name in English, and that's why we have the page there. &mdash; Khoikhoi 09:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, then, should we choose the version of Britannica? I still do not understand why we do not write the correct version in paranthesis. Since this is not the case of spelling as in Istanbul. Writing the common version first, then the correct version in paranthesis in order to prevent disambiguation. (Note for the google search, if you search: barbarossa ottoman admiral, you'll get more but if you search: "barbarossa ottoman admiral" in quatation marks you'll get less results. That's what i mean.) E104421 10:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 10:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The simple answer I can give you is because it's against Wikipedia policy, namely WP:MOS. It's like moving John Calvin to John Calvin (Jean Calvin), the latter of which is his correct name. You are more than welcome, however, to add the correct spelling of Barbarossa's name in the intro, but the title should reflect what someone or something is most commonly known as in English.
 * As for the Google search, the only reason why I'm having "ottoman admiral" next his name in the title, is because Barbarossa is already a disambig. page, so the title is to distinguish him from Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, Aruj, Barbarossa (board game), and Barbarossa (album). The page would be at "Barbarossa" if these other things didn't exist. &mdash; Khoikhoi 10:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Correcting my version above cause of edit conflict: Ok, then, should we choose the version of Britannica? I still do not understand why we do not write the correct version (actually, this is his name Hayreddin) in paranthesis. Since this is not the case of spelling as in Istanbul cause his actual name is missing in the case of Barbarossa (Ottoman Admiral). Labeling with the nickname is not a good way, causes misleading. Writing the common one (nickname) first, then the correct version (real name) in paranthesis is better (also prevents disambiguation). {P/s: Note for the google search, if you search: barbarossa ottoman admiral, you'll get more but if you search: "barbarossa ottoman admiral" in quatation marks you'll get less results. That's what i mean.} E104421 10:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC) 10:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By writing the name as Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha) {first nickname, then real name} or better Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa) {first real name, then nickname} prevents all the disambiguation. I checked the wikipolicy page WP:MOS, there is no reason for us to remove his real name. Even the current version is better than naming it as Barbarossa (Ottoman General) cause the current version labels him with his real name not with the nickname. Furthermore, if you google by writing his name as Barbaros Hayreddin Pasha here [], you'll get 588 results the highest score and this satisfies the common labeling condition. E104421 10:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I fail to see why it would make such a difference to have his full name up there.. I mean, the article would have more coverage if it was only barbarossa.. His full name will always be mentioned directly in the beginning of the intro.. In any case, barbaros is out and will never be used, no matter what.. His name in English is Barbarossa, very good analogy being Christopher Colombus.. We should remember that this is English Wikipedia, this is the same exact logic that stops Turkey article being titled Turkiye.. Even for humans, the common sense and logical rule is that his most commonly known name should be used.. I have never heard anyone anywhere outside Turkey refer to him as barbaros hayreddin pasa.. E104421, what's all the fuss? :)) Baristarim 23:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Barbarossa is his nickname not only in Turkey, but everywhere, sometimes these nicknames become more popular but in an encyclopedia real names should be mentioned also in the entries, for this reason, there would be no problem if we rename the article as Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha) or Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa). E104421 07:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a problem, as I've already outlined above. &mdash; Khoikhoi 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Khoikhoi, there is no problem with naming the article as Barbarossa (Hayreddin Pasha) or Hayreddin Pasha(Barbarossa) according to the wikipedia naming policy. See the nicknames part. E104421 17:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See the 1st sentence in the policy page: the name of an article should be "the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but see also the nicknames policy. Barbarossa is not his common name, it's his nickname. Nicknames can only be redirect, not the title of the article. For example, King Billy can be a redirect, but not the article name for William III of England: there's no reason to use the short name or nickname. For this reason, the best choice is Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa). Cheers! E104421 23:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Barbarossa was the "name" by which he was commonly known, then and now. Maybe we should recall that Genghis Khan's name in fact was Temujin and redirect everything about him to "Temujin"?  I don't believe rigidity in applying some "rule" is needed here, but the kind of common sense that makes it easy for an English-language user to find what he/she is looking for. Cosal 23:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbarossa is his "nickname". For this reason, Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa) is better. In this way, we not only label the article with his name "Hayreddin Pasha" but also mention the nickname (Barbarossa). For the Genghis Khan case, "Temujin" is not a nickname. It's one of his names. Another example from wikipedia is "Yavuz" Sultan Selim I. Selim is his real name (used as the title). Maybe cause of the language barrier the "redirect" is misunderstood. The title cannot be a nickname, see wikipolicy here [] E104421 23:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of arguing with you about this. This is getting nowhere. Instead, I'm going to go to WP:RM and create a poll here, that way we can see what other Wikipedians have to say. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, if titles can't be nicknames or pen names, why don't we have T.S. Eliot at Thomas Stearns Eliot, or Mark Twain at Samuel Langhorne Clemens? &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * it is written above "the title cannot be a nickname" the title refers to our case, read King Billy example. E104421 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please answer my question. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Answer is simple. Nickname is the name given by others to a person (maybe different from place to place as in our case) but pen name is the name chosen by the person himself/herself (it's unique). This is also quite clear here[].


 * What about the Sinan article? Should we move the page to Koca Mimar Sinan Agha? &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Sinan is his real name, Koca is the nickname, Mimar is his title, Agha is a kind of title (like Mr). To prevent disambiguity, it might be labeled as Mimar Sinan (in english Sinan, the Architect). If we adapt this case to ours, we should write only Hayreddin Pasha (Hayreddin is his real name, Pasha is his title), but i'm proposing here to write also the english nickname in parathesis as Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa) in order to prevent the disambiguity. E104421 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Question for the "nickname" dogmatists: Have you looked up "Blackbird" or "Buffalo Bill" lately, in WIKI or elsewhere? And no, dear E104421, "Temujin" was not a nicknsame, but his real name, and he only later became known as Genghis Khan. As to the person being discussed here, "Barbarossa" was hardly a "nickname, but instead a honorific by which he became known (and certainly much better known than by his birth name Hizir. Remember, too, that even Khair ad Din was not his name, but a honorific bestowed upon him by Sultan Suleiman. Cosal 01:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, be careful. Read my comments above. Temujin is one his real names as i said before. In our case, Barbarossa is obviously a "nickname" meaning "redbeard". Please read my comments again but carefully. E104421 01:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your right. My apologies.  My point remains, though: we show him NOT under Temujin, but under Genghis Khan. Cosal 02:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, real names should be used to label people. Both Genghis Khan and Temujin are his real names but Genghis Khan is more commonly used. My point is related with nicknames. E104421 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Move (close call). Duja 08:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Barbarossa Khair ad Din Pasha → Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral) – "Barbarossa" is the most common name for this person in English - both Britannica and Columbia use this name as well. I propose to move this page per Naming conventions (use English). Since Barbarossa is already disambig. page, I think having "Ottoman admiral" in parentheses will do the trick.

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~


 * Support per my above reasons. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Barbarossa is nickname and doesn't meet the exact title. Because there are historical personalities called as Barbarossa other than Hayreddin Pasha. Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor is also called as Barbarossa.(Frederick I (German: Friedrich) (1122 – June 10, 1190), called Barbarossa (meaning Redbeard), was elected king of Germany on March 4, 1152 and crowned Holy Roman Emperor on June 18, 1155.) 2) When we search with "Barbarossa" keyword in Wikipedia, we take "disambiguation" alert. However if we change topic as Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa) this provide more healthy search results. 3) In Ancient Greece, Greks called non-Greks as Barbarossa. So, Barbarossa doesn't remind only historical characters. This increases the disambiguation.--Karcha 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my above reasons. Moving to Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa) is better, cause his real name is Hayreddin and his nickname is Barbarossa which means redbeard. It's ridiculous to call him as Redbeard (Ottoman admiral) E104421 01:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See Blackbeard (the page is not at Edward Teach (Blckbeard)). &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, for this reason, there is still a disambiguation page as Blackbeard (disambiguation). If it is at Edward Teach (Blackbeard), there would be no disambiguation. E104421 01:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But "Blackbeard" is still a nickname, right? &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, should be written in paranthesis to prevent disambiguation. E104421 02:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Cosal 02:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Khoikhoi. Even in Turkish we call him "Barbaros Hayreddin Pasha". Even if it is his nickname, it has huge usage, especially in other languages to such a point that it has superceded by far the usage of "Hayreddin". Khoi's proposition seems reasonable and sound. Baristarim 16:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with E104421, if we need a change this must be Hayreddin Pasha (Barbarossa). Because;
 * Support per Khoikhoi.--Tekleni 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I support e104421's acpects--Serali 20:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per all of the above. Hectorian 04:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Whenever Turkish or Turkey related article is under question, I see the same users, namely Hectorian and Tekleni, who always have the same POV. E104421 11:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments
 * It will be pretty much guaranteed that no user interested in this historically significant person, unless they are Turkish speakers or fairly sophisticated Ottoman history buffs, will find what he/she is looking for unless Wiki lists him under his most widely known name -- Barbarossa, with whatever addition after that in parentheses. Why hide him in some obscure place? Cosal 22:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Review
I'm really sorry. This is a quite good article - aye, the lead could use a little work, but otherwise, it's pretty good - but it lacks citations, and thus fails a key part of the GA requirement. I'm quite willing to help with the Citation process, at least from a procedural point, as I'm not familiar with Barbarossa himself much, but I've done a citing up before, and it's not exactly a quick process. Have a look at WP:CITE and Footnotes, and... well, let's get this up to GA, and quite possibly FA once that's done. Adam Cuerden talk 16:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment Drive

This article is shy of a GA rating because it needs citations and other details such as an appropriate infobox.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Differences between this article and the Encyclopaedia of Islam.
This article states that Barbarossa arrives in Istanbul in 1532 and that sultan Suleyman then gives him the title of kaptan-ı derya and beylerbey of North-Africa. However, the Encyclopaedia of Islam states that Barbarossa indeed reaches Istanbul by the end of 1532, but then soon leaves for Aleppo after an invitation from the Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha, who bestowed on him officially the office of Kapudan Pasha, with the title Djeza'ir beglerbegi, which should be understood as "Beglerbeg of the islands", and not of Algiers. Does this mean that Suleyman gives him this title and Ibrahim Pasha makes it official? Or is this simply something which differs in E.I. and you sources? If so, could you maybe state in a footnote that there are sources stating otherwise? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.244.113.121 (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually in Ottoman Empire, grand viziers were the only allowed persons that could carry the same stamp with the sultans. So grand viziers orders' were taken into account as if they were sultans', and here I think we had the same situation. For that time it was not important if the order was from grand vizier or the sultan himself because it would be signed with a similar stamp. Prelude 33 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Article name
Shouldn't it be Barbarossa Hayreddin or Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha? Adam Cuerden talk 02:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha would be the closest form to the original Ottoman/Turkish Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa.

Hayreddin Barbarossa, on the other hand, is the original Italian form (in Italian language, the adjective follows the name; e.g. you say "macchina rossa" (car red) instead of "red car" in English, where adjective comes first and name/noun comes afterwards) Flavius Belisarius 12:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Legacy
The first paragraph of the Legacy section reads like a piece of Turkish propaganda. How is it related to article at all?


 * I don't know, but it seems to be fine to me. Also, remember to sign your posts with four tildes when you do.  I shouldn't have to remind anyone, nor should anyone else.Drakonis 18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of portions of Oruç's article
It seems that alot of this article was probably copied and pasted from Oruç's article. Any ideas as to why?Drakonis 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming again
If the article is named "Barbarossa" since it is commonly known(?) among English speakers, surely it should begin with the full name of this person. Why does it start with "khair ad din" while proper Turkish name would be "Hayreddin"? Shouldn't the encyclopedia respect national names where they are not "commonly known" in English? Filanca 14:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the name since nobody objected, and added a poem. Filanca 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have changed the name back to Khair ad-Din since the modern Turkish spelling Hayreddin is already given between brackets in the same sentence. I think it would be anachronistic to use the modern Turkish spelling since this was only introduced in the 20th century, by Atatürk.  Before that time Turkish was written in the Arabic alphabet, and a transliteration like Khair ad-Din points up the structure of this name, as it would have done to the Turks of Barbarossa's time.  There is no single correct transliteration for Arabic, and other forms would do just as well, e.g. Khayr al-Din, Khayr ud-Din, etc. Most scholarly transcriptions write "Kh" as an underscored "K": Kair al-Dīn). In pronunciation the "l" in the article "al" is assimilated to the following "D", hence "ad-Din" instead of "al-Din", but the article is always written as "al" in Arabic. If you insist on using the modern Turkish transliteration of "Hayreddin", you should also write "Paşa" instead of "Pasha".
 * One more thing: I don't know Turkish, but I have the impression that the spelling "Hayrettin" is preferred over "Hayreddin" in modern Turkish. In Google, "barbaros hayrettin" yields 65,800 hits and "barbaros hayreddin" only 17,400. So, even in modern Turkish there seems to be no consensus on the correct spelling of the name.  One more argument to stick with Khair ad-Din, I'd say.
 * Bontekoe 11:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This person is not Arabic, he is Turkish and Turkish names are pronounced differently from Arabic ones even if they are of Arabic origin. Wikipedia accepts Turkish spelling for Turkish people. Example: Mehmed II not Muhammad II. English-speaking writers follow Turkish spelling too. An example is John Freely in Strolling Through Istanbul (find the full reference in the artivle). I would not insist on Pasha over Paşa, but the first one seems to be the common use in English. See Atatürk article: "Gazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha". The double use of "Hayreddin" and "Hayrettin" is not a reason for reverting to a non-turkish spelling. But since you alluded to that, although both usages are accepted in modern Turkish, use of "d" is more common for historical personages and "t" for modern names. Although you may get more hits with "t" spelling, "d"s are more common in scholarly sources, hence I prefer it here, but "t" is not "wrong" strictly speaking. These are the reasons for re-writing the Turkish name instead of Arabic one. Filanca 17:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you put it that way, Ataturk is a Greek too and fought his own people for people he wasn't even related to. Makes sense.24.86.138.0 (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that Barbarossa was neither Turkish nor Arabic. He was a native of the Greek island Lesbos, so if you want to use modern concepts of nationality, he was a Greek. As you will doubtless be aware, however, in Barbarossa's time there was no such entity as "Turkey", or "Greece" for that matter.  There was just the Ottoman Empire, which included a multitude of different ethnic groups, Turks being one of them.  Calling Barbarossa "Turkish" is plainly unhistorical and in point of fact an expression of modern Turkish nationalism.
 * Just as relevant to this case is that the name Khair ad-Din is purely Arabic. The modern Turkish rendering is an attempt at a phonetic rendering of the Turkish pronunciation of an Arabic name. As I said, the transliteration "Khair ad-Din" points up the structure of this name, which means something like "The goodness of faith", while forms like Hayreddin are just a meaningless combination of sounds (I suspect this may have been Atatürk's intention all along).
 * As to Hayreddin being being the common form of this name among English-speaking writers, I can do no better than cite the Encyclopedia Britannica, which speaks of Khayr ad-Din. The only existing English biography of Barbarossa is Ernle Bradford's "The Sultan's admiral", which speaks of "Kheir-ed-Din".
 * I am neither Turkish, nor Arab, nor a Muslim, and I don't really care very much how you write it. As I pointed out, though, the spelling "Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa" is already given between brackets in the first sentence of the article, so I'd say there is no point in repeating it.  Moreover, Wikipedia's naming conventions say: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works."  So just out of curiosity, I'll change the name back again to Khair ed-Din and see what happens.
 * 213.10.105.39 20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. What is your reference for Barbaros being Greek? Surely Hayreddin is not a Greek name. Why dont you rename the article with a Greek name? :) Midilli was an Ottoman land and ethnic Turks lived there as well as ethnic Greeks. Of course Hayreddin is phonetic representation of his name, this is what an alphabet normally do :) This person was not called Khair-ad Din (which is a phonetic representation of an Arabic name). Wikipedia convention for Turkish historical names is to accept Turkish rendering as in Mehmed II. Unless there is a Mohammad II article, this one should stay as Hayreddin. Filanca 05:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr Filanca, I never said Barbarossa was Greek. I said you might call him that "if you want to use modern concepts of nationality", and the implication was of course that would be unhistorical. As to Wikipedia naming conventions, I quoted chapter and verse (the Encyclopedia Britannica and Bradford's biography), but you ignored that. Obviously you are prepared to continue an issue like this indefinitely, so I'll let you have it your way.
 * Bontekoe 14:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you used modern conceptions of nationality Barbarossa would be Ottoman. When we say he was Turkish, naturally we speak of his ethnicity, not meaning he was a citizen of the Turkish Republic. I've noted that some English sources use Khair-ad Din, while I've provided another source in English using "Hayreddin". A Google search for "Barbarossa Khair" and "Barbarossa Hayreddin" plus "Barbarossa Hayrettin" gives close hits (not including English pages with "Barbaros Hayreddin"). Evidently there is no consensus among sources about spelling of this person's names. And you seem to overlook the fact that there seem to be a consensus in Wikipedia, about using Turkish spellings for Turkish people. Even in this article; names of Arabic or Persian origin used by Ottoman Turks, like Yakup, Mehmed II, shehzade, Selim, are written in Turkish spelling. Writing those names as if they were Arabic would amount to calling a Frenchman Petrus instead of Pierre.

About "hayreddin" being a "meaningless combination of sounds", yes, probably some ordinary Turks living in Ottoman times would think such an Arabic phrase was so. While more scholarly ones would make sense out of it. Still this is the way it was pronounced. Turkish latin alphabet did not change the way people speak. Filanca 22:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that referring to Barbarossa as Turkish or Greek is anachronistic. He is of the muslim millet of the time -- millet literally means nation in today's Turkish but in this context does not denote nationality as we know it -- and that includes speakers of Turkish, Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, and so on as well myriad crosses between the groups. That said, modern Turkey, having been established by remnants of the muslim millet, is the main "inheritor" of Ottoman history, so it does make sense to filter Barbarossa's name through modern Turkish usage.

The tranformation of last-letter "d"s to "t" is an Ataturk-era grammatical novelty and, as pointed above, does pose a bit of a problem for historical names, as in whether to use Mehmed or Mehmet. To stick to current Turkish grammatical conventions, one would be inclined to use the latter spelling form although there does exist a "dissident" intellectual position that favors the former. Gdeleuze 01:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor Correction
In the section Kaptan-ı Derya of the Ottoman Navy one can read: "In the same year Barbarossa captured Corfu from Venice..."

This is wrong.... Corfu was raided and pillaged but not captured from Venice

in particular: "in 1537 the devastating raid of the Turkish admiral Khaireddin Barbarossa took place with the consequent obliteration of the agricultural cultivations (vineyards, olive-trees) of the island and the enslavement of nearly all the population of the countryside (roughly 20.000 Corfiots were sold as slaves in Istanbul). Luckily the Old Fortress was well defended by a 4,000-strong garrison with 700 guns and when several assaults failed to carry the fortifications, the Turks reluctantly re-embarked." The previous excerpt is taken from www.corfu.gr/en/history.htm which is stated as source of the Wikipedia article for Corfu

This can also be confirmed from books about the History of Corfu, for example: Old Corfu: History and Culture (3rd edition) by Nondas Stamatopoulos

(79.103.137.45 (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

Good article review
This article has been nominated for Good Article review. Baristarim 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that it needs more work to tighten it up and give it a compelling story line. There is at present, in my view, too much essentially irrelevant clutter about each small event and every single ship allegedly captured. Cosal 01:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will try to see what I can do.. Baristarim 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You may also want to greatly shorten the first section which mainly deals with Oruc Reis and is pretty much a verbatim repetition of what is already written on the Oruc Reis page. Cosal 14:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And while you are at it, do you think you can do some work on Ali Pacha, the Ottoman commander at Lepanto in 1571, about whom I can find very little and who is often confused with Kilic Ali Pasha? Cosal 14:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I will try to do it tomorrow, i really have to get some sleep :) Baristarim 22:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

back then that island was ottoman soil and ethnich Turks lived there. Barbaros was an ethnic Turk.

Barbarossa was an ethnic Albanian, just like Ataturk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.236.230 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything to confirm he was Albanian and not Turkish? &gt;Drakonis&lt; (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

he was an ottoman, end of discussion. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A 'jannisary sipahis' doesn't exist
His father cannot be a 'janissary sipahi' because such thing doesn't exist and never existed. I have never read or heard of such a thing like a 'janissary sipahi'. What is that supposed to be then? Everybody with some knowledge about the Ottoman military system, would know:
 * That a janissary is an infantryman and a sipahi is a cavalryman. So it is impossible to be an infantry and cavalry soldier at the same time.
 * A sipahi was given land by the sultan in new conquered areas. This was not given to janissaries. Yakup Aga, was given land for his military services.
 * Janissaries were not allowed to marry, they lived in their barracks. So if Yakup Aga was a janissary how come he gets married?
 * Janissaries and Sipahis were different types of soldiers.
 * Also it is not possible to be an janissary and then turn into a sipahi and vice-versa.

THUS he was a Sipahi and NOT a Janissary Sipahi.

And I do no invent this, all other sources call his father a Sipahi. They do not mention anything about janissary.

If you want more information read the janissary and sipahi article.

I want to congratulate the person who found the source for 'janissary sipahi', because for finding such a weird source DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

nice one mate, thank you. 188.202.146.57 (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is "janissary sipahi" ? I cannot find in the article. Takabeg (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Red Beard
Not to be nitpicking, but as I know it, and I have no idea how to verify this, Barbaros did not have a red beard. It was his brother Oruc who was red bearded. After this famed corsair was finally cornered and killed, and his head paraded all over Spain, his brother, young Barbaros, vowed revenge. He dyed his beard red with henna in Oruc's memory and then proceeded to to make Mediteranean a Turkish lake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.20.158 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hayreddin Barbaossa did have a red beard actually. Redman19 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nickname is a remnant from his father whom had actually red beard--Cerian (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Pirate box
I'm not sure, he is a pirate. His men might be involved in piracy but Barbossa is the commander of Ottoman navy. He is also an administrator and divan (supreme council) member. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A number of governors in the english and french colonies were also involved in piracy in the Antilles (often for the sake of their country). A corsair and a pirate aren't that removed and often it amounts to foreign perception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.76.172 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, similar function in modern military such as Nazi Kriegsmarine was operated in similar way, captain Hans Langsdorff as example, should we rate him as privateer pirate too due to his activity as German Navy pirate?Ahendra (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hayreddin Barbarossa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080106230616/http://www.corfu.gr:80/en/history.htm to http://www.corfu.gr/en/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Hayreddin Barbarossa. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080123112847/http://www.sinanasaygi.com:80/en/eserler.asp?action=eserDetay&ID=12 to http://www.sinanasaygi.com/en/eserler.asp?action=eserDetay&ID=12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hayreddin Barbarossa. 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/20080505045940/http://www.corsaridelmediterraneo.it/indice/a.htm to http://www.corsaridelmediterraneo.it/indice/a.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090308030932/http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/TURKCE/tarihiMiras.asp?strAnaFrame=TarihiMiras&strIFrame=INDEX to http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/TURKCE/tarihiMiras.asp?strAnaFrame=TarihiMiras&strIFrame=INDEX
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617132510/http://caldwellgenealogy.com/pirates.html to http://caldwellgenealogy.com/pirates.html

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) 14:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hayreddin Barbarossa. 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/20110414100014/http://www.turkkorsanlari.com/korsan/kapdan1.htm to http://turkkorsanlari.com/korsan/kapdan1.htm

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) 19:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)