Talk:Regency of Algiers

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

↑ To top of page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Regency of Algiers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

Regency of Algiers was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 18, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Algeria Top‑importance

	Algeria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Algeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Piracy High‑importance

This article lies in the latitude of WikiProject Piracy, a crew of scurvy editors bound to sharpen up all Wikipedia's piracy-related articles. If you want to ship with us and help improve this and other Piracy-related articles, lay aboard the project page and sign on for a berth.PiracyWikipedia:WikiProject PiracyTemplate:WikiProject PiracyPiracy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Piracy To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Piracy:

Requests: John Lopez (pirate), Lords of the Spanish Main, Benjamin Bennett (governor) (see What links here), Thomas Walker (pirate), Richard Bishop (pirate)
Expand: Charles Vane, Edward England, Emanuel Wynn, George Lowther, Pierre Le Grand, Roche Braziliano, Thomas Cocklyn, Woodes Rogers, Piracy in the Indian Ocean
Verify: Daniel Johnson (pirate), Henry Jennings, François l'Olonnais, Olivier Levasseur, Edward Davis (buccaneer)
Copyedit: Golden Age of Piracy
Images: MV Delight, MV Powerful,

Arab world Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Berbers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Berbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerbersWikipedia:WikiProject BerbersTemplate:WikiProject BerbersBerbers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Mid-importance).

Military history: African / Middle East / Ottoman / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Ottoman military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Islam: Muslim history Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Muslim history task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

On 28 July 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Ottoman Algeria to Regency of Algiers. The result of the discussion was moved.

Section sizes

Section size for Regency of Algiers (71 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	8,436	8,436
History	14	74,459
Establishment (1516–1533)	37	24,833
Spanish expansion in the Maghreb	1,957	1,957
Barbarossa brothers arrive	2,084	2,084
New masters of Algiers	2,702	2,702
Campaign of Tlemcen: Death of Aruj	2,859	2,859
Algiers joins the Ottoman Empire	1,460	3,612
Reconquest of Algiers	2,152	2,152
Morisco rescue missions	1,758	1,758
Hayreddin's successors (1534–1580)	1,364	9,824
Algerian expansion	4,064	4,064
War against the Spanish-Moroccans	4,396	4,396
17th century: Golden Age of Algiers	3,789	23,403
Ottoman suzerainty weakens	3,439	7,016
Ali Bitchin Rais	3,577	3,577
Foreign policy	3,171	12,598
Kingdom of France	4,448	4,448
Kingdom of England	2,220	2,220
Dutch Republic	2,759	2,759
Maghrebi wars (1678–1756)	1,763	7,868
Tunisian campaigns	3,186	3,186
Moroccan campaigns	2,919	2,919
Dey Muhammad ben Othman Pasha (1766–1792)	2,175	8,242
Pacification of the Regency	985	985
War with Denmark	887	887
War with Spain	4,195	4,195
Decline of Algiers (1800–1830)	42	10,099
Algerian Jewish merchants	1,954	1,954
Crisis of the 19th century	3,111	3,111
Barbary Wars	3,833	3,833
French invasion	1,159	1,159
Political status	1,459	15,666
1516: State of Algiers established	1,191	3,002
Hayreddin's consolidation	1,811	1,811
Ottoman Regency (1519–1659)	38	5,557
Beylerbeylik period (1519–1587)	2,345	2,345
Pashalik period (1587–1659)	3,174	3,174
Sovereign Military Republic (1659–1830)	50	5,648
Janissary revolution: Agha regime in 1659	2,482	2,482
Deylik period (1671–1830)	3,116	3,116
Administration	1,544	12,372
Algerian stratocracy	1,922	8,988
Dey of Algiers	2,830	2,830
Cabinet	2,040	2,040
Diwân council	2,196	2,196
Territorial management	1,840	1,840
Economy	15	15,271
Algerian slave ransom economy	4,515	4,515
Mandatory royalties and gifts	2,877	2,877
Taxation	1,932	1,932
Agriculture	2,615	2,615
Manufacturing and craftsmanship	1,957	1,957
Trade	1,360	1,360
Society	769	8,814
Urban population	2,768	2,768
Social structures	2,837	2,837
Tribal aristocracy	2,440	2,440
Culture	12	13,690
Education	2,901	2,901
Architecture	5,788	5,788
Arts	14	4,989
Crafts	3,149	3,149
Music	1,826	1,826
Legacy	3,796	3,796
Gallery	1,807	1,807
See also	992	992
Notes	6,427	6,427
References	28	28
Bibliography	51,282	51,282
Further reading	3,754	3,754
Total	216,794	216,794

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Quotes[edit]

I'm re-checking quotes to make sure they are identical with the sources, especially Arabic and French ones. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good idea Elinruby (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PRG[edit]

Hi @Elinruby: @Nourerrahmane: How much more work are planing to do to the article? The reason I ask I think it fairly complete now. I think its the law of diminishing returns now. I was wondering if we can submit it to WP:PRG this week and perhap schedule a copyedit. I have an editor in mind, Polygnotus, who might not mind doing a run through on it. What do you think? scope_creep^Talk 08:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

depends on whether Nour is done. I see some copy editing that could be done, but I don't think I have to be the person who does it. But let's respect Polygnotus' time, hmm? I also think we should do Mathglot's Earwhig hack. It was suggested for good reason; apparently some past editor had trouble with the concept. Bottom line, good idea, when Nour is done rewriting. Fresh eyes would be good. Elinruby (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i think i'm done rewriting, i'm still not sure about that long de Grammont quote in Legacy section though. Hopefully i have fixed the issue with quotes and i'll sure give it another check. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please do because that would be a serious problem and it would be embarrassing for someone else to find it. Same with copy vio. Elinruby (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're good to go Scope, it's okay for me if there are still some mistakes, since i have worked on this the best i can. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: @Nourerrahmane: That is the whole point of external review to surface any work, to spot anything that needs fixed. I do know it will take some time before it kicks off; it could be a week, it could a month or longer. There is a fair sized queue there. If we can do the Mathglot Earwig hack first and then kick of PRG and see what happens. Put it in on Saturday, give a couple of days to do the Earwig report. scope_creep^Talk 16:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nour, what are you unsure about with the de Grammont quote? If it is length, then that is not necessarily a problem as long as the quoted material is important. And exact, but you have been checking for that, right? Elinruby (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was about length but if it’s important and descriptive enough of the general 19th century view of Algiers then I’ll leave it. And yes I have been checking for this and other quotes to make sure they are accurate and identical to what’s in RS. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: @Nourerrahmane: I'm going to submit it for WP:PRG now. scope_creep^Talk 07:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- scope_creep^Talk 07:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats it added. A bot will post it to the list in an hour or two. scope_creep^Talk 08:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks scope ! Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PRG Returns[edit]

@Nourerrahmane:, @Elinruby: A reviewer @Z1720: has left a set of comments we need to have a look at. scope_creep^Talk 08:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello scope, regarding the feedback I guess we can work on everything he listed except reducing the article to 9000 words, according to WP:articlesize, the article should probably be trimmed unless the scope of the article justifies otherwise. The current state of the article gives a comprehensive look about the regency of Algiers, i just cannot agree to remove what’s already summarised. Everything in the article is an important element in the regency history. Up to him to decide what’s not that important so we can discuss it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think you should expand and then split into two main periods. No trimming on what is an extremely wide period of history. scope_creep^Talk 15:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres was against a split, since in fact the regency remained the same entity for 300 years with little modifications in its political system and foreign policy and even its relations with Constantinople unlike Muradid and Husainid Tunisia and Saadi then Alawi Morocco. The Regency history should be understood within the transformation of the Ottoman Empire as a military governed Imperial state that gradually broke loose from the Ottoman Empire because of divergent external intrests, without renoucing its formal affiliation to the latter. Splitting may confuse regular readers and make them beleive there are two seperated states when in fact it's the same autonomous military governement (Odjak of Algiers) that characterised the over 300 years old Ottoman Algeria.

That is why i beleive this is the best we can do regarding trimming and summarizing the article, we just cannot ignore the slave economy of Algiers, its government composition, relations with constantinople, foreign policy, wars in breif, soceity (urban and rural), culture, and the different views of specialized historians about it. Since this period of Algerian history was subject of many misconseptions. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should preserve some unity on the matter. One possibility that's radical but also fairly simple and common would be to transfer the large "History" section into a new History of the Regency of Algiers article; similar to what already exists, among other examples, for the Ottoman Empire (History of the Ottoman Empire) and to what we are currently implementing for the Mamluk Sultanate (History of the Mamluk Sultanate) due to similar concerns. That would mean condensing the history section here, but preserving all the work done so far in one still-unified history article that would be linked in a hatnote at the top of the section. R Prazeres (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Condensing the history section to a maximum and include it in Political status section ? that seems like a possible solution. This also means i can expand the history section (Article) a bit... I like this option. @Scope creep @Elinruby @Riad Salih @Mathglot @M.Bitton what do you guys think ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor clarification: to preserve clarity for readers, you still keep a "History" section in this option, but just condensed and linking to the full version in another article. Whether we should potentially also include the "Political status" section in this process could be discussed (e.g. you could choose to copy some of it into the new history article too, in order to provide the full context there as well). R Prazeres (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, i was thinking about this possibility, since both these sections are linked in this article, the Beylerbey period corresponds with the wars against Spain and Morocco, the Pashalik period is linked with Algerian opposition to the Capitualtions traties and the Franco-Ottoman Alliance,resulting in the weakness of the Pasha (Ottoman regent) and the rise of the military elites to power. The Agha and Dey periods are linked to the wars against France, England and the Dutch and the Maghrebi wars before stabilized relations were established. The decline of Algiers in the late period might need a paragraph about the political decay of Algiers in the History Article.

The history section here will be like a summary for the History Article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very standard procedure at articles that grow to this size, and have subtopics that are easily worth an article on their own. Please see WP:Summary style for a description of this, and some recommendations of how to proceed. There are standard terms such as WP:G#Parent article and WP:G#Child article that’s are used for this. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think splitting off the history section is the natural move and putting back summary blocks here to cover the main points of the history. I think it will be quite a substantial series of paragraphs, as 300 years to summarise but fixes the problem. It does seem the logical move with some scope to expand. scope_creep^Talk 09:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nourerrahmane has gone ahead and created Draft:History of the Regency of Algiers. I'm getting the sense that there we are indeed all leaning towards this option? R Prazeres (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with Scope Creep; the summary can still be substantial in order to be fair to the topic, but as long as it's comparatively much shorter, I think it'll go a long way to reducing article size. R Prazeres (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Hi @Nourerrahmane: Are you planning to make a start on creating a summary of 300 years of history. scope_creep^Talk 18:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scope, i started doing this today, i'm planning to pix history and poltical status period, and how history itself influanced political status in short sentences. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you moving the political status to the new article? M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the political section needs to be moved. You need the history in its own article with the summary of history here to link with main article links, perhaps subsections links but nothing more than that. scope_creep^Talk 20:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thought i could merge the two sections here and summarize them, but i'll just summarize the history section alone, could use some help though. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might leave this a bit empty. When Elinruby comes back, she might end up doing some of it. I'm up for it. scope_creep^Talk 23:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]