Talk:History of the Regency of Algiers

Draft
@R Prazeres It's mostly copy past with small additions. I guess we now need a summary for the main article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thanks. I suppose we should confirm that the others do indeed want to do this, but I imagine they will. R Prazeres (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Unused refs
I've taken out all the unused refs and put them in a fr section for completeness and neatness until we are ready either to use or get rid of the whole fr sections on both article. May need one or two but there is a lot.  scope_creep Talk  07:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Unused refs, used in main article
















Multitarget
Hey @Elinruby, it's here, there are actually two volumes of Seybold ref, can't figure out how to cite them seperately. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * that might be more of a question since I have less experience that he does with MoS and templates. But I will look inot it if it's still there when I come back. Elinruby (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it though didn't we have this problem with De Grammont or one of the other older French sources? Regardless, gotta go, will look into this when I come back if it's still here when I check on it. Elinruby (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can fix that. But the ones in the history article that are above page 545 must be other volumes, so they are not Seybold. Seybold is only good for p. 258. If you can give me the volume numbers for that page, for the history article, then I can create the references and cite them. Page 258 is Seybold. I'll check what p.471 author is. The author name is the end of the article, but the volume number needs to be in there, so it can be found.   scope_creep Talk  20:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * refs: 180, 230 and 235 are Vol 2 Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * (still not really back) I am assuming this is getting fixed unless somebody pings me about it Elinruby (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm doing it now.   scope_creep Talk  21:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is ref 180 correct p.854 vol 2. Is on the China-Cift page and can't verify. Doing the other two.   scope_creep Talk  21:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed citation to Holt in 180. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Coolio. So I can tick that as finished.   scope_creep Talk  22:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

old ref



 * Not sure what this was about Elinruby (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

war with Spain section
Mohamed ben Othman is a redlink and I know he has an article, need to fix redlink Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

✅ he had a previous mention and Nour unlinked the second one that was spelled differently. Solved the redlink, maybe should standardize name Elinruby (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) ✅ I did standardize the name also Elinruby (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

New masters of Algiers
sort of a disconnect here; The Spanish landed, so how does the north wind come into this? I haven't looked at the main article yet, and am sure that this has to do with the ships they were retreating to. But someone who hasn't spent months on this article might wonder, and just a few words would probably be enough to resolve this. I will come back to it, but noting here as a reminder to self, and if it gets fixed before I get to it then great. Elinruby (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hopefully it's clearer after my last update. Also replaced the unsourced phrase you removed with more context. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw the Leo Africanus quote. That is probably good. I have to be on another device to verify the reference but I am going to find out that the quote is in the source word for word, right? Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Also just saw the part about ships getting washed onto the coast, and that takes care of the above concern. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I know I keep asking this
Morocco opposed the Ottomans with determination, and saw Algiers as a danger to its independence. It also had ancient ambitions in western Algeria and especially in Tlemcen.

but does Boaziz cover both those sentences? If so could we please put a cite at the end of the first one.? Please. It strikes me as very crystal ball and synthy, as in we should not say this but we can indeed quote Boaziz saying this if he does.

I wrote the quote.<--Nour is this you? If so, okay, is there a source that says pretty much this? Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Alternately, how much do we lose if we just take it out? I personally think it could well be true and should be easy to source, but it *is* synth unless it's sourced.Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ I believe this now has the same cite at the end of both sentences, thank you for that. Elinruby (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, no. The first sentence was still uncited. Now it does have the same cite at the end of both sentences. Elinruby (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Need guidance on tai'fa
Should the mention in the lede link to taifa? I hadn't noticed that article until now Elinruby (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * just noting that when it came up deep in the administration section I did link it as an explanation of the type of organization. I just think tai'fa is not exactly the same thing as in the taifa article. Or is it? Translator hesitated here, in any event. Elinruby (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the "Ali Bitchin Rais" section the term is linked to Corsairs of Algiers where the term is defined. I would link in lede and remove in the Bitchin section. Any thoughts?s   scope_creep Talk  20:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fundamental question here is whether taifa, whose article does not mention Algiers, is the same thing as tai'fa. If it is, then I agree with Scope creep. If it us not then following the usual rules with it may be misleading.Elinruby (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not the same at all, these taifas are independent kingdoms of medieval islamic Spain, while the tai'fa is the community of corsair captains of Algiers. I agree with you on this scope. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC
 * Aha kingdoms not just governments. My question was whether this was related enough and it sounds like you are saying no, not at all, so: 1) not linking in the lede 2) the link on the body should go away also. I will make a point of finding that and posting here when done Elinruby (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Still need to do a search specifically for this, but I *did* notice that if you wikilink "tai'fa" it goes to taifa. So there is a hole in the road there. Meanwhile, I will do the search before I close this. Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅I did do a search, taifa is not present in the article now, and tai'fa is linked appropriately Elinruby (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

tone issue
infested is usually used for vermin, insects, bacteria... I assume it came from one of the sources? Can we nail down which one, or would you prefer that I change it to another word such as "covered"? Elinruby (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, @Elinruby i don't have internet connexion right now, i'll be available tonight (GMT +1). Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I am not particularly fussed about it but we should talk about whether this is really what you meant, or we are channelling European historians again or what. Needs to be clarified and maybe attributed. Probably attributed. Elinruby (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Braudel 1995 vol 2 is quite a heavy use of the word infested so the source is correct. According to the OED, infested means "to trouble a country or place with hostile attacks, to visit persistenly with large numbers with the purposes of destruction". It may be obselete though. The Cambridge dictionary states its a insect based gig. I think Braudel is using the original definition, i.e. old definition from 1536.   scope_creep Talk  17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It may need changed?   scope_creep Talk  20:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * it may sound biased at first blush. If the source is using it and Nour's point is that the source is biased, which is a discussion that we have had a few times, I think it should be a quote. To a North American ear it sounds really derogatory and I question whether it should be in Wikivoice. Open to discussion on all of the above. Elinruby (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Nour, it carries about the same tone as "infecte" in French, ie not just infected but disgusting, rotting and probably contagious. If you just want to say there were a lot of pirates in Mediterranean waters, I will find another word. If you are arguing in your head with French historians, I sympathize but your readers will mostly not have the background to realize that, and it should be attributed and probably in quotes.Elinruby sig added by   scope_creep Talk  09:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That would certainly fix without removing it, but it does mean massive quantities of something, in this instance, a huge fleet. Quote it, if everybody agrees.   scope_creep Talk  09:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the History article, I have changed this to Algerian pirates were everywhere in the waters from Valencia and Catalonia to Naples and Sicily. }} Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅I made the same change in a slightly different place at Regency of Algiers. The word no longer appears in either article, and I don't think it should as it amounts to saying that the tai'fa=vermin. Checking this off but let me know if someone has a problem with this. Elinruby (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Chaouch(?)
This turns up in the discussion of the Pact. Wiktionary has several definitions, none of which seem to apply. Can we talk about what you mean by this, since "Ottoman high official", "Moroccan service worker", and "grape varietal" seem to not be what you mean. Not saying don't use it, just that maybe we need to fix wiktionary. Also, by the rules of either French or English, the plural would be "chaouches". I was also confused by "gunner" this is usually a job not a branch of the military. Is this talking about what the French call "tirailleurs"?

Speaking of not saying don't use it, where was it that you were talking about slaves being worth less than a radish (or was it an onion)? In the part about prices crashing in the slave market? It's actually an interesting insight, like the corsair song, would kind of like to see that go back in, preferably cited. I just got stuck on clarifying the meaning of it.

You remembered that ? Lol i will add it !

For Chaouche or Chaoux in French: here is a depiction and a description

The one in the middle

Description of the Chaoux, the Ottoman Algerian FBI Nourerrahmane (talk)

Of course I remember that. Part of the problem was that the price of tulip bulbs for example went nuts in that period and I wasn't sure if radishes were scarce. It's a big discrepancy from the usual value of either slaves or radishes or onions, right? I think it is an interesting detail like the coffeehouses.

Revue: That's really interesting, and great source btw. Maybe we should send that in to wiktionary also. Chaoux had not occurred to me but that would seem like a valid plural to me for whatever that is worth. Is there some difference in meaning between chaouche and chaoux? Just asking because they would be pronounced differently. Maybe singular and plural?

PS Are you familiar with the White Cloaks in Game of Thrones? user:Elinruby 01:44, 10 June 2024. Missing sig added by   scope_creep Talk  09:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Anyway it sounds like that is what they were. I changed the unlikely spelling Chaouchs to Chaoux. I still need a hint about the gunners. Elinruby (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gunners are those who serve in the Artillery. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No idea who the White Cloaks are, i haven't seen GOT entirely Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So why are they getting a special mention, is what I don't understand then probably. White Cloaks are another name for the Kingsguard. This may not be mentioned as much in the TV series as in the books. Jaime, the brother of the Queen, is a member of the Kingsguard, if that helps. Sort of a cross between bodyguards and fixers, is where I was going with that Elinruby (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see, here they are more likely a police watching over governement officials, and they answer to the dey alone. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Both, they guard and spy the the officials at the same time, i might adress them when i start working on the Odjak of Algiers again, this article is about the military government of Algiers, and needs a lot of work.
 * The gunners, or those who serve in the artillerty corps are known as "Tubjiyya" and they have a seperate unit but still answered to the Agha of the janissaries (who happen to be both the minister of defence in the cabinet and the commander in cheif of the army of Algiers)
 * Regarding GA status, i think scope is more fit to answer this question. i think we added all that was required in the peer review. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * when you say watching over, do you mean to guard or to spy on? It pretty much fits, but an analogy isn't much good if it needs an explanation. As it is, just asking questions in case it seems like a good idea to go deeper. I still don't understand why a gunner is distinct from a janissary, but I am not sure how much this matters. I will be back later on another device that is better able to get to sources and maybe that will tell me. We're almost done. I am still finding problems but they are further and further apart and smaller and smaller. What is the status of the GA nomination right now?
 * We need to renominate it and start from scratch at WP:GA. It was a fail on the previous GA.   scope_creep Talk  22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's had one GA fail. I thought Nour re-nominated it then put that nomination on hold? Elinruby (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was removed by @Mathglot since the article wasn’t ready to be submitted yet. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Right; withdrawn, not failed. By the way, it is currently listed as Symbol c class.svg-class; is it worth getting reassessed to see if it meets the criteria for Symbol b class.svg or Symbol a class.svg-class? Mathglot (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it has had quite a bit more work than your average C or B class, but since we have an unspecified complaint about references and I am in fact finding problems there, albeit small, I would say wait a few before submitting anything anywhere. I definitely am way too involved to review it myself and whether it is a good idea to be a B class going in is a good question. I am ok with what people think. Elinruby (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I never came across the word, but speaking strictly from orthographic rules in French for pluralization of words ending in -ch, the rule is add -s. French nouns ending in -ch are extremely rare and almost all are loanwords like sandwich. The plural of sandwich is  sandwichs  (no change in pronunciation) and is even officially in the J.O., along with a lot of other loanwords per the 1990 orthographic regulation. According to these rules, chaouch, if that is a singular noun, would become chaouchs (no change in pronunciation) in the plural. Mathglot (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected for saying it violated the rules of French then. I still like chaoux better though, and since it is attested and the change is already made I think I will leave it that way. Thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Done for a while
A lot of the alts are done, but someone should check to make sure it's all of them. Some of them are better than others, feel free to edit. Got a lot of small problems taken care of. Back later. Elinruby (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I check all the alts today. They are all done.   scope_creep Talk  17:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK good. The standardization on diwan with an accent circonflexe on the a only and a lower case d is complete, as is, as far as I can tell, janissary with a lower case J. On italics, I left most foreign language words italicized but removed italics from words that are frequently used in the articles such as the titles dey and bey. All of that is as far as I can tell done. Got a bunch of spelling, not sure it was all of it though. Main article should read a lot better and possibly is done. I would like to go over it again. History is getting there. I found it a little harder to proofread since I am starting to know it by heart. I am going to go do some Sunday afternoon things and will be back later.
 * There will be a lot of folk looking at it at fac, experts and if there is problems with the spelling of diwan, then it will be surfaced there.   scope_creep Talk  10:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Well Nour agonized over it, so I am pretty confident that what we did here is at least defensible. The major point though was to spell it the same way consistently in the article, even though the sources don't. Because it is bad enough that the *people* all have three names and who knows how many titles. By the way, I did a pretty deep dive into the Manual of Style over something else (Pied-noir vs. Pied-Noir) and as far as I can tell from a fairly detailed examination there is no mention at all of the sort of nomenclature we have going on here in for example Hassan III Pasha, or pretty much anything on the African continent at all Elinruby (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Last map
The last map, Map of the Barbary coast in 1667, by Richard Blome, is stellar.  scope_creep Talk  20:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * agree Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

War with Spain section
a couple of things I just wanted to check on


 * in the caption of the Fort Santa Cruz image, I changed "chapel" to "mosque" because it appears to be a mosque with a dome and a minaret. It occurs to me however that "chapel" might be right if the Spanish repurposed the building.


 * Mohammed (with various spellings) ben Othman is the same person as Baba Mohammed ben-Osman, right? Elinruby (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Also I have spent a ridiculous amount of time messing around with ; it looks gorgeous, the whole project, but I can't seem to find a link to either a transcript or any kind of recording -- is that right, or is my antiquated technology interfering with something?
 * Is this for an external link?   scope_creep Talk  06:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the museum. See what they say.   scope_creep Talk  06:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I realize that we are not really looking for more sources, but we don't seem to have all that many from a Spanish point of view, and well, it's a candidate for Further reading. On that subject, all the stuff with sources -- let me see if I understand this correctly -- After all of the moving and splitting was done, there were sources in both articles that were not being used in the particular article although they were in the other. And some also that were no longer used in either one? So is there a complete list of these extra sources? I think we should preserve that work somewhere. We are doing that, right?
 * Going back to a deep dive
 * Elinruby (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Its something to think about. I removed the FR sections on advice from the reviewer as its assumed all reference would be used. Only a single ref remained when I cross-checked them, I found that all of those sources were used in at least one of the articles.  scope_creep Talk  06:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * that's what I thought you said but I didn't quite believe it. That's a huge number of references Nour mostly compiled by himself. As for the link, idk, are you finding any actual content? If it's just a sort of outline of "things we have but aren't telling you about" I don't see the point even if it is gorgeous. I am not going to Palma anytime soon. It's just a thought. Let me know if they answer you though. Elinruby (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yip.   scope_creep Talk  11:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing back from the Museu de Palma. It could be weeks or longer before they respond from prior experience. I did check youtube and her own site. I don't think we should wait for them.  scope_creep Talk  16:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No I don't either. I wasn't suggesting that. It's a shiny object I noticed. If we can find a way to use it, great. Otherwise, we defintely already have sources. My phone crashed last night. It's been complaining about storage for a while. There will be a slight delay while I coax it into letting me copy off some content, and some related computer stuff that has been much-delayed. Top priority is the two reference errors at the Regency article. Elinruby (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Phone issue seems to be fixed. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The fundamental pact
I was reading the content of the fundamental pact or ahad aman as it’s named in its original language, i have found that it was in fact amended in 1748. The original pact goes back to 1657. It even states the names of those who signed it including the commander in chief who would start the the janissary revolution two years later in 1659, Khalil Agha. (P 218)

Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ahad aman is not the name of the person?  scope_creep Talk  19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, its the Arabic name of the charter of the regency of Algiers, the fundamental pact. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It literally translates into « pact of trust » Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lol. Thats funny.I thought it was a dude. Ref 207 will need fixed then. I'll do it.   scope_creep Talk  19:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks scope! Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Map discussion at Alawi sultanate
There is an ongoing discussion relating to the main map used in this article. Your input would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: I renamed this section to 'Map discussion at Alawi sultanate' (was: 'June 2024'). Mathglot (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion there is of about the map used for the infobox here and of how to repurpose it for that article. Nour has objections to the map proposed there based on scale among other things, as I understand it. In any event, my takeaway is that that discussion is related to this article but does not affect it.
 * in related matters, I produced a version of the same map that labels the Sahara based on something someone suggested elsewhere (on this page I think) but did not get any answer when I asked if I should upload it. Want me to put it here so people can look? Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

this is a question that I would like an answer to. Elinruby (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ‘Morning @Elinruby, can I see the map ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about it. I can take a look either today or tommorrow. There is a point on the lasted PR comments from Matarisvan that stated the current infobox map isn't sufficient. I would upload it so it can examined. The infobox maps does need some work, so post it here. I was planning to do the PR points this weekend but my family were in, so ate up the time.   scope_creep Talk  16:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am having rl eruptions but have some time tonight and will have more tomorrow. Map here. Modifications are possible, some more so than others. Moving or removing Sahara labels is easy. I wish Bejaia had a trema but that would be a lot harder, and so would changing the label for Oran to something less Arabic. Elinruby (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

source badly needs a second look
Taking advantage of the corsairs' reputation as "holy warriors" and social divisions between urban and rural populations, Hayreddin bolstered his ranks with Andalusi refugees and local tribesmen,[40]

Needs to be reworded. It's pretty far from what the source says. For a start, Andalusi refugees are not mentioned. This is a true statement for some point in time but it is not supported by this source. Second, this is a far more positive presentation than is found in the source. The source is cited in two other places in the section and those instances seemed fine. I am going to take the refugees out but this will not resolve the issue. Will post here if I find a way to do it myself. Elinruby (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Done Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This is much better, want to take another look later, but pretty much resolved.Elinruby (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Barbary wars section
willing to curb American trade in the Mediterranean if this was intended to mean voulant it does not. Checking to make sure before I call this an idiom fix. Substituting "wishing" would be enough, but would still be a touch... foreign. Probably can do better after looking at source. Elinruby (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it's more adequate with the source now. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Another true statement unsupported by source that does discuss the topic
Algiers officially became part of the Ottoman Empire under Suleiman I in the spring of 1521.[37] Statement is true, source talks about this topic (I guess... it's in the title) but the link goes to an abstract which does not specifically support the date it is used to cite. Elinruby (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This is now fixed Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really based on the abstract, but I just realized that this is an open-access article and I am not sure what other link you could give to a specific page. Sorry to be confusing. I think the new wording is an improvement though, and I will download the source. I expect now this will be fine but I haven't done that yet.

slight disconnect
The sultan called Barbarossa to the Porte in 1533 to become Kapudan Pasha (Admiral). He put Hasan Agha in charge in Algiers as his deputy and went to Constantinople.[56] Two years later in June 1535, Charles V of Spain conquered Tunis, held by Hayreddin at the time.[57]

Ok but when last heard from Hayreddin was in Constantinople. Was he back or should that say something else like "Hasan Agha" or "Algiers" or "the Algerians"? Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * on re-reading the source, I see. He took it as the Ottoman admiral not on behalf of Algiers. Will find a way to improve that, or if someone else does, please let me know. Elinruby (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Also Barbary Wars
Being the most notorious Barbary state,[245][246] Neither one of these sources uses the word notorious. Biggest and strongest is not the same thing.Elinruby (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Most prominent might be fit. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Onion as the price of a slave
I guess this must have been discussed at the main article, but it was added here also (?) Anyway I just wanted to say I noticed it here and the wording is good. Assuming the source verifies, that's really great, good detail. Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Did i already tell you that this has become a saying here, when speaking badly about someone, we say : "He's not worth the price of an onion head" Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you mentioned that. I might be able to work it in. Elinruby (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hassan Bey Bou-Hanek
Is Hassan Bey Bou-Hanek the same person as Hassan Bey of Constantine sent a force of 7,000 men led by Danish slave Hark Olufs to invade Tunis in 1735, and installed bey Ali I Pasha[183] as a vassal of Algiers who promised an annual tribute to the dey.[183][184]? Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's actually his predecessor Kelian Hussein Bey known as Bou Kemia. I added him, Thanks for pointing that out. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

✅ this looks done Elinruby (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Moroccan campaigns
I think the timeline in the second paragraph might be scrambled. Ref 197 is talking about Laghouat. And why do we care about a letter? Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Added aftermath of the battle of Chelif and removed some unverified information along with that ref. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I saw that and what you did looks like an improvement. However, the part about warning him not to do that again might be important. Bottom line, so far so good, have not re-reviewed, just scanned.Elinruby (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Ref 213
Its gubbed again and throwing an error, after I fixed it.  scope_creep Talk  17:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

what's the deal with citation bot doing that? Elinruby (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the citation bot.   scope_creep Talk  17:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Presidios
Hi @Elinruby, Julien uses the word presidios. Can you please check again ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * OK Elinruby (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You're right. I mentally skipped the subtitle, I guess. And didn't get to the bottom of the second page. I was going to suggest that the word itself probably doesn't have to be referenced, but putting it right in front of the citation made it look like that is what you are trying to do. Anyway, it's going back in and I will see if I can work it in a little earlier. That reference also supports that string of cities getting seized by the Spanish btw Elinruby (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure this is fixed. Will check to make sure this is true of both articles. Elinruby (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

✅ done Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Kouloughli revolt
Added a section about a famous revolt in the 17th century, hopefully it’s important enough to be in the article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It is. The English needs a little work. Which is fine.

But since you mention this, should Kouloughli really be capitalized? I know that is a fraught question and I don't think anyone else knows either. but based on the RfC over pieds-noirs, if it is the name of an ethnicity commonly used in English it should be capitalized. If some other conditions it should follow French usage, which would be lower-case, right? Or actually, this was too early for the French to matter, unlike for the pieds-noirs. Is it capitalized in Turkish? I see Scope creep rolling his eyes. I think for now we leave it alone pending further information. I know I have seen it capitalized in sources, but I don't remember whether they were in French or English. Elinruby (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It’s « coulougli » without capitalization per Wolf Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ok. And we trust Wolf? I am asking. You're the local topic expert. What we're doing seems wrong to me and I am happy to make the change if you are sure about that. Elinruby (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually there are multiple RS that use the word « coulougli », seems right to me, though I have chosen to follow the dedicated page for it « Kouloughli ». What should we chose first in this case. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was the fact that other pages capitalize the word that made me ask rather than just make the change. On the fence about capitalization per "Metis" and 'Creole" but they both evolved into distinct ethnicities. Was that the case with this group? Elinruby (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe this helps: to the extent that I understand the Manual of Style on this, if the word means "a type of soldier" it should be lower case. If it means "an ethnic group, many of whom became soldiers", it should be capitalized. And afaik sources trump other wikipedia pages, especially if they do not provide a rationale for the spelling. Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They are not an ethnic group, they are considered Turks.
 * I have reworked this section a bit, hopefully it's much more understandable this way. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry for late responses, today is Eid al Adha here and I smell…sheep. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ok Elinruby (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * btw if it was cooking you mean mutton but I hope you had fun Elinruby (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, mutton with couscous is tasty. Thanks! Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * mm couscous. Harissa. You made me hungry. I saw the spelling change at kouloughli revolt; just wanted to know if you did that everywhere in the article or just that one section? I have some what tags up but they are really just to remind me to go back there. Right now I can't look at the sources, and probably that's all that is really needed probably, does not need your attention at this point. I am just now thinking Regency of Algiers thoughts and have been looking in on the RSN case somebody started about changing "the Prophet Mohammed" to the "Islamic prophet Mohammed". I recommend we do nothing about this right now as it was never actually closed. Elinruby (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

followup re "the Prophet Mohammed" vs. "the prophet Mohammed" vs. "the Islamic prophet Mohammed" -- I am not sure how this got resolved in the larger picture but we currently say "the prophet Mohammed", which the RSN discussion seems to have accepted as a valid disambiguation in the case of this article, and the attempt to make people say "the Islamic prophet Mohammed" has apparently failed since no other religion has a prophet named Mohammed Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Latest PR comments
How are we getting on with the latest updates to the PR. We have following updates:
 * The infobox image needs updated to show the Regency didn't advance south
 * See unanswered question above -- on which I inged both you and Nour -- about my edit to the map to add labels saying 'Sahara' Elinruby (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Image alignment to centre on the multiple image blocks
 * Have not addressed but can 20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Standalone images to right alignment, so as to not inteference with bullet lists and what not, on the left hand side.
 * I think this will result in some portraits staring off the right side of the page but this is a change I can make Elinruby (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is done for this article (only, so far) except for the image at Algerian Jewish merchants section, where the subject would be staring off the oright of the page. No bullet lists anywhere near there. I left him alone. Elinruby (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * this is now done for Regency also except image at Hyreddin's consolidation is a portrait in profile looking right, and would be staring offscreen, I swear it says somewhere to avoid this and that does seem right to me. If necessary I can find a link to that. Also, in the image at Tribal aristocracy, the primary subject is looking at the viewer but all of the horses are definitely in motion and would be riding off the the screen if moved to the right. Also, it is a rather splendid image, so I increased its size a bit. I did some other tweaks to images, which are discussable. The device I am on right now has a very wide screen and what looks good here may not work on my phone for example.
 * ✅ As far as I am concerned right now this is done Elinruby (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Moving the 1575 map a little down the article
 * If we go by time periods, the section in question is about wars with Morocco, so I am not sure how relevant a map of Algiers would be. It's pretty simple to move it though -- maybe Urban populations? Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Expanding the lede to 4 paras.
 * Do you mind if Matarisvan expands the lede to 4 paras. I doubt I would be able to do, since I've not done much content work and not a subject-matter expert on the regency. Nour is ok with it, at the moment.
 * I looked at this last night and am confused. The lede is already four paragrapphs is it not? Elinruby (talk)
 * Looking at Regency (I should have posted this block at Regency talk), it's only 3 1/2 paras and needs expanded as its too short.   scope_creep Talk  20:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * KK. As soon as I eat will start with looking at that. That seems like something I can address as I eat lunch.  please ping me with new updates, ok?  are both taking a well-deserved break from the article for a few days. Elinruby (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The paragraph breaks are in a pretty reasonable places as far as I can tell. If Matarisvan agrees that the 16th century or 'golden age' could be fleshed out and wants to work on that, then halleluia I guess Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

How are we getting on with the rest of this. I saw the centre tags being updated.  scope_creep Talk  17:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If so that was Nour I guess. Not me, anyway. I still have not addressed the content problems at regency. I know you are hell-bent to submit this but you're pushing too hard And some of this doesn't even apply. I don't get understand the huge hurry Elinruby (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * These are the latest points raised at peer review last week and need to be addressed.  scope_creep Talk  20:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This should have been posted on the regency article talk.  scope_creep Talk  20:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes this is a problem we are all having with this dual submission I think. But look, most of that isn't exactly "copy-edit". I don't mind doing it and I get that I just had a break and you two are both fried. But don't ask me about a list of image format problems that I didn't know I was supposed to do and then complain that I am doing more than a copy edit. I can't even understand several sentences in the new section, for another thing. And neither one of you finished the sourcing review at regency, so that isn't done yet. That said, going through the references last night was beyond tedious and I will be extremely irate if any new sources get added without trans-title and lang parameters. And I still have to do the same review over here. PS it is still raining so I already despair of life. I am pedalling as fast as I can. Elinruby (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I need to take care of some stuff and will be gone until at least tonight. (Noon here now). New references added without urls, that needs work. Some alts still missing. When I come back I would like to work on the too-extensive translation at Regency. Elinruby (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wound up working on the reference section here, and think I got all the problems with language and trans-title parameters, capitalization and alphabetical order. Needs a final check. There were a lot of them. I also moved the images per peer review and fixed some captions. At least some alts are still missing. Elinruby (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Elin ! i worked on the url in the Regency article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

status
Sorry guys major drama eruptions elsewhere, and a trip into the hospital to get an injured leg looked at. That is ok-ish btw, or at least will get better, they tell me. So here is where we are on this project according to me:


 * History article is close to done because it is not affected by the problems below with the main article.
 * Needs a final readthrough and check of talk page items. Will try to do that tonight.
 * Also, moving images to center has, in a couple of places, put four images at the end of an article directly above two centered images at the top of the following section. Am willing to do this gnoming also.
 * Alts are still missing in places. I have repeatedly been told this is done. Look at the group of four paintings of sea battles.

Back latish tonight. It is 4:30pm here now Elinruby (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regency article: Manufacturing, Agriculture and Crafts sections were not finished when I had to take a break from this article and it does not look like anyone finished them.
 * Manufacturing should be updated to include use of slaves in shipbuilding, if that has not been added while I wasn't looking.
 * Crafts section is cited now, but largely to a single source. Some of it is not very amazing and possibly should be cut (manufacture of bridles for instance)
 * This is one of the sections that was heavily rewritten because I discovered ancient copyvio. Needs a careful recheck to make sure all of this was fixed. Probably best done by me because the sources are French and I have already been waist deep in this. I initially took a very incremental approach to this section due to the learning curve, but I think some of the text is unnecessary at this point. We have if anything to much material.
 * Agriculture section as I recall does not mention wheat. This needs to be fixed because there were actually wars over wheat in the period.
 * It would be nice if we expanded the discussion of the date plantations in the oases and of the irrigation systems. But was this in the Regency of Algiers period, ?
 * I think people have been boggling at the feudal system, but M.Bitton gave us a really nice source (and also one for the wheat trade) so we should use it/them.

Junk ref
Morning  That ref you used for that block is a shopping site that uses history to attract buyers to it historic hotels. I don't think it is a valid reference. I suspect you would be asked to change it at FA.  scope_creep Talk  10:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Morning @Scope creep, thanks for telling me this, i will search for another rouce then. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Scope can you please find an RS for that John Eliot quote ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For this: "The seas around England seem’d theirs”?   scope_creep Talk  14:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep. If possible Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

contradictory file information, removing as redundant in this article anyway
File:Atlas Van der Hagen-KW1049B13 058-The City of ALGIER.jpeg

The filename references a pretty famous Dutch map, as 17th century, Dutch maps go. Which is fine, but the name given as author does not seem to have written this text. Either of these provenances would be highly respectable, but they seem to be incompatible. Elinruby (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Elinruby why did you change the image emplacements, many images are now located in inadequate sections. For example: de Ruyter's image has nothing to do with the Algerian Spanish/Moroccan wars of the 16th century, The bastion image has nothing to do with Ali Bitchin Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you plan to make changes in the futur ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree that DeRuyter's image is out of place chronologically but I didn't get back to that yet. But can we discuss whether the current layout addresses the butt-ugly traffic jam we had at the end of the article? Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I've updated the broken profile url on the image to the current url containing the image properties at the Nationale Bibliotheek on Wikipedia Commons and its filtered through already to the en Wikipedia image.    scope_creep Talk  14:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * That seems to be an improvement (and here is something about the map in English btw. for those who are trying to see my point) but I still see nothing to validate the notion that John Ogilby has anything to do with this map. He *did* produce a map of Africa, but its title sees to have been Africa, and I can't find anything about this map that says that John Ogilby contributed to it. Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It not something you need to worry about. Art history is byzantine by its nature. Its deep history and in the deep past. The museum is sure of their provenance, otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned it.   scope_creep Talk  10:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC);From apparently unread talk page section// above,,: Also, moving images to center has, in couple of places, put four images at the end of an article directly above two centered images at the top of the following section. Am willing to do this gnoming also. Alts are still missing in places. I have repeatedly been told this is done. Look at the group of four paintings of sea battles.
 * without regard to what the images *are*, is the layout ok now? Elinruby (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's better like this, there is more space and it's much more pleasent to read the content of each section. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It does look odd that with Jolly Roger image pushing that block out, with the one below. Is there anyway the Jolly Roger can be moved into the block or removed? Either that or create a multi-image block with 3? i.e. another two for War With Denmark. It could potentially go into the War with Spain multi-image since its off that period and makes no assertion as to a particular section as far as I can see.   scope_creep Talk  10:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK I will look at that in a bit, still very very hot here Elinruby (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to ident properly. There was complaints a couple of weeks ago about talk page layout.   scope_creep Talk  10:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep is "Wide" the norm with the page width ?  Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2024 (UT[
 * In case this is coming up because I said a couple of times that this laptop has an unusually wide screen: I am not sure what the "norm" is any more but I get completely different layouts on the laptop and on mobile, and I worry about for example hard-coding a width. Bottom line, something that looks fine to me on a wide screen may look terrible on a phone or even a smaller laptop or tablet. but for npw I am going with what looks good to me, allowing for most people having a smaller screen. I think the best way to handle this is to convert the remaining File images to multi-image formats and let the software fight it out Elinruby (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have done the img alts Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I added the Bloody Jolly roger first. I know beleive it should be removed. I'll leave it for cosairs of Algiers article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I really like that Jolly Roger image. If we can keep it if possible, as it sums in one image what the civilization was for long while.  scope_creep Talk  14:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't know much about page width at all.  scope_creep Talk  14:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)quest

I am not questioning the museum, but the uploader. And I will say it again: we already have too many bad/irrelevant images in the later part of this article. I see no reason to knowingly host bullshit jusy so we can continue to have too many, and I am absolutely not going to do any image editing until I am sure the images in question are authentic. There is a disturbing pattern here
 * 1) editors want these articles to be featured. Well guess what, that usually happens by playing politics, and none of us is equipped for that
 * 2) these articles therefore are going to have to qualify for featured by meeting every single criteria
 * 3) unfortunately neither of you wants to hear about it when they don't

Go ahead and submit this shit and don't say I didn't warn you, just like with the other article. Do you want to improve the article or not?

Currently Unused image: | image3           = AN EMBASSADOR FROM GREAT TURK TO THE KING OF ALGIER.jpg| caption3          =  (Imperial envoy) (17th century) Andreas Matthäus Wolfgang| alt3              = A robed and turbaned emissary holding a walking stick

I also removed the alleged Goya with no provenance. Elinruby (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Elinruby what are the images in this article that you believe are not necessary to be in it.
 * Regarding this article i think we should remove:
 * - Barbarossa ship
 * - Combat with the portugese ships
 * - Jewish man
 * - De Ruyter (He's barely mentionned in the relations with the Dutch republic section)
 * - Bloody Jolly Roger, i maintain that this has to do with the corsairs of Algiers article, rather than the regency history one, why ? because the history of the regency is about politics rather than how the corsairs operate, the red flag is a no quarter flag used in certain circumstances and not an official standard of the regency's fleet, as there are many of those stadards and you can check them in the Flag of Algeria article. I added it first but i now beleive it should be removed.
 * - Borj Tamenfoust: Although it is mentionned that Baba Mohammed ben Osman built some forts, this particular fort was built in the 17th century, the Santa Cruz fort is enough in my opinion.
 * - We might find a better image of the French colonization than the Landing at Sidi Fredj image, but if you're fine with it then i don't mind. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Be bold and remove them. Better images can be added later on by other folk, i.e. reviewers if necessary, or us later.    scope_creep Talk  10:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I took out the jolly roger image. I was advocating for it, so thought I'd better remove it, to remove that particular hump. The balance in that section (centring) looks better already.   scope_creep Talk  10:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks scope :) Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::;Finally! Some real talk on images
 * If this is the model ship, it's a candidate sure. I like it fine and I'd like to see it get used but we have a lot of images and maybe that one would be good for something more specifically nautical. An article about the ship itself maybe.
 * Don't know which one you mean but in general we have too many paintings of sea battles in my opinion -- but that is also if we keep them all bunched up around "Golden Age of Algiers". Bottom line, sure maybe
 * Yes. It also makes me uneasy to specifically mention Jews, but this seems to be historically accurate. But with an image the pitfall of not seeing an antisemitic depiction is a lot more dangerous also. If something needs to go I would be delighted for it to be this.
 * Well the Dutch seem to think he is all that, and our section on them is a bit short because the international shipping aspects are a bit difficult to enunciate, but huh, on the one hand, I rather dislike him on sight but on the other, isn't that a Goya?
 * I dislike the Jolly Roger but you two just figure out where you want it and let me know.
 * Borj Tammenfourst: I added that and that's an arresting image but it should really be displayed full-size if at all, and I don't think I realized it was quite that beside the point
 * Sidi Fredj: comes across as a pretty pink blur. Neither for or against it.
 * What do you think of this Fly-whisk incident image as a replacement ? File:Musée national du moudjahid 4.jpg Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep this one ? File:Barbarossa galley in France 1543.jpg Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That guard band is an auto FA fail. Fly whisk looks good.  scope_creep Talk  12:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I reshuffled the images a bit. Those two images in Ali Bitchin are not proposed for staying there. That map really does deserve the width. Inn fact, in general, we display very detailed maps at a thumbnail size where they are indecipherable. This is true of all of them and maybe the solution to this is to have a maps sections? A lot of these map images are historic and independently notable imho, not just a depiction of the geography the way we are using them right now. Elinruby (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I am ok with that. Can I please get rid of the medal also? Visually speaking I really hate it. Elinruby (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2024 (UT
 * 1- I agree, i beleive that barbarossa flag in the Algerian museum fits better.
 * 2- The image with a ship in flames on the right.
 * 3- Do you this image is a good replacement ?
 * Yes, these are geoplitical maps of these time periods, but i think they would fit more to their adequate sections to respect chronology
 * Yes you can take out the medal too. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * some attempts at answers
 * Ok. I am judging images based on relevance, authenticity and visual appeal. I am not enamored of the flag visually but ok, it's relevant if it's authentic and it does seem to be authentic. I feel about the same way about the bloody Jolly Roger, btw, and having looked into the museum in Portsmouth just a little now I have to say I was probably too dismissive of it.
 * I think I just deleted it. If not I will. We seem to have agreement that it is not our best sea battle, and we ca't have images of all of the battles; there were just too many
 * I think that that image is less likely to come across as derogatory, although I am not sure the other one would have either. This is just speaking from the experience of closely observing the Holocaust in Poland Arbcom case, where Jew with a coin figured quite prominently and perhaps unfairly. I'd actually like a subject matter expect to give us some input on the discussion of the Jewish community, but nobody particular comes to mind. I will come back to that. To answer the question, it is for sure a more sympathetic portrayal. But what would we use it for and does its provenance meet FA standards?
 * Let me see what I can do with the maps. We definitely have an embarrassment of riches there as well, but I would like to use them all if possible. Elinruby (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm ok getting rid of the medals as well. They don't quite fit that section.  scope_creep Talk  12:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Model ship
 * reply
 * On the downside - this is slightly out of focus at maximum magnification unfortunately. Its an older image, taken by a digital camera in 2009, low megapixels, so not enough information there. However, it gives the reader an excellent understanding of what these ships looked like before the country converted to ocean going sailing ships and we don't really have anything similar here or on the Rejency of Algiers article. On the upside, there is other higher quality images of galley's as they were standard designs which may be used.    scope_creep Talk  11:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The galley image you posted is the same image in article already, thats just the Wikipedia version. The more I look at it, the more I'm sure it needs replaced. Its badly out of focus, even at the high zoom levels. Its not a FA quality. I think it needs a straighforward Algerian galley image of period, perhaps black and white but colour better.     scope_creep Talk  12:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I found this: It has a whole series of images on ship types from different centuries in Algeria of that period. There are pretty decent high-quality black and white images and goes into significant detail on layout, construction, and types. May be worth a look.  scope_creep Talk  13:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, what about this galley image ? File:Barbarijse galeien Barbarijsche Galeijen (titel op object), RP-P-1896-A-19368-451.jpg Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Got also this File:Bombardementd alger-1830.jpg Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Both of these images are ideal. The second sentence one is the same image, just on Wikipedia. But both have lots of detail and the battle image has been cleaned already. Both are ideal.    scope_creep Talk  15:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

2. Too many battles.
 * There is 11 in total.
 * I would take out "Spanish attack on Oran 1732". Its tiny and its not FA quality.   scope_creep Talk  12:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would take out "Willem van de Velde the Younger - Portuguese Action with Barbary Pirates - Google Art Project.jpg" There is not a fantastic amount of detail and don't think its FA quality. Its been used in another article, so is not destitute.   scope_creep Talk  12:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would look at this: "Action Between the Dutch Fleet and Barbary Pirates RMG BHC0849.tiff". I think it probably has thick coat of varnish on it as its not been restored. I'm borderline.  scope_creep Talk  12:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't strictly a battle, but the postcard "KIMBALL1816 U.S. Squadron before the City of Algiers.jpg" is really grubby and its used on both articles unfortunately. Its very grubby. I don't think quality is there. Its not FA quality. If it could be replaced it would be ideal in both, or possibly cleaned by the graphics lab.   scope_creep Talk  12:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The ones that are remaining are excellent, high-quality, in-focus and in-context images. Kudos to whoever added them.   scope_creep Talk  12:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

5. Borj
 * What exact image is that.  scope_creep Talk  12:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

7. Sidi Fredj
 * On the downside, it is pretty blurry even up to 4k by 2.6k magnification which is unfortunate. I think it is probably a very large canvas thats been designed to be viewed at a distance. I don't think its an FA quality image. I see its used on both articles.   scope_creep Talk  11:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I deleted some of the ones on which we seemed to be agreeing. Let me know if I was wrong about any of that. I resized when the changes made the remaining iages too big but otherwise I have not so tried to optimize what is left or go through Scope's comments. Elinruby (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There was an another entry at WP:PR at Regency made by Matarisvan, which I missed when I saw away for a few days. He stated is likely any images from auction sites would be non-FA as the copyright cant be determined. They generally don't release the copyright, the standard fare, which is the opposite of the advice that I thought was salient. To err on the side of caution, I would take then out if they come from auction sites.   scope_creep Talk  21:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * that is why I was asking about Sotheby's. I had an edit conflict when I was answering the above so will come back but Bordj Tamenfoust.JPG is what I was talking about. It's gone since Nourerrahmane convinced me on grounds of authenticity, but it turns out that it's a better image than what was previously at Bordj Tamentfoust so I put it there. Elinruby (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

stopping for now. I have not implemented everything on which there was consensus (defined as at least two of the three of us agreeing, since not everyone always comments). Nor is this a finished proposal, but for example see how much better the Bastion of France image looks? Let's have some feedback from here. I have not yet looked at the new images you both seem to like but that qualifies as consensus so I will add them, or I will give a reason why not. I agree about the stains in the one image Scope said was "grubby". I could, conceivably, get rid of those stains, but it would take big guns and that might be a problem in terms of the "faithful reproduction" part of the license. Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought your were just querying the auction status. Anyway, Matarisvan mention two further images on the Rejency article that is outside the historical period. Probably already addressed.   scope_creep Talk  08:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "querying the auction status" but yes, having been told that auction sites are bad I am asking if Sotheby's is an auction site. There was another website that had a link to "auctions" so I removed that image, which was just the nth depiction of the harbour at Algiers anyway. As far as I know my top-ten todo list currently looks like this:


 * 1) Flesh out Baba Mohammed in the lede slightly per N request; he is right about that
 * 2) Determine whether Sotheby's image is ok
 * 3) Pin N down on proposed text about jihad in lede
 * 4) Alts are missing in Regency of Algiers again
 * 5) Find images S and N agreed on in this thread
 * 6) Figure out which two images S is talking about and address if need be
 * 7) Make sure the conflation with Golden Age of Algiers/of corsairs/ of piracy got straightened out
 * 8) Golvin overuse - just delete the door knocker already
 * 9) I absolutely hate the new tile image with the camera flash. Why use that when better tile images are buried in a gallery at the end of the article?
 * 10) What is the issue with having the rather nice image of the Ali Bitchin Mosque be in the Ali Bitchin section? Was he the wrong type of Sunni or something?
 * I will be back later Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

5. Found the images S and N were agreeing on. No issue with them but where to put them is the next question. The one with the galleys would be early; I guess I will start there. Looking Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

maybe for clothing section in other article?
Nothing against this image really, but it doesn't belong where it is. Sticking it here for now. Elinruby (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Braun Algier.png
the right hand side of the image got cut off somehow. Don't think it's the settings, since the caption displays properly. Adding to to-do
 * Also, since we are here, the Dutch map whose file information I was questioning turns out to be a huge 4-volume book that hey, may well have been an anthology, so that map might be going back in soon. Trying to get a second opinion and not sure who to ask, but since I found out that the Museum links directly to the images at Wikimedia Commons, I am inclined to say the pages are probably curated, and that what is written there is probably right, even if I can't validate it with a quick Google. Elinruby (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Post the name of the image, so we can find, instead of talking about it in the abstract. What dutch map?   scope_creep Talk  03:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)