Talk:Barbary corsairs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

More info on the pirates themselves should be included.

Hi, I previously added referenced sources to the “Barbary Corsairs” section, but they were removed. They were as follows: “Slave raids were conducted largely by Arabs and Berbers rather than Ottoman Turks. However, during the height of the Barbary slave trade in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, the Barbary states were subject to Ottoman jurisdiction and, with the exception of Morocco, were ruled by Ottoman pashas.”. You said however that it “Contradicts every RS about the subject. Take it to the talk page”, but that is simply disingenuous and comes across as unwilling to correctly expand the section as is needed. The previous source used in that section is explaining that during their time the most notorious Corsairs were often European renegades, inferring that they were often the most famous or well known ones (as would be expected as they were classed as traitors). However, they were not the most common of the corsairs, as the vast majority of them throughout the history of Barbary piracy were known to be native berbers and Arabs, even during the Ottoman eras (as the sources I supplied you provide evidence towards). It should be recognised that references such as The Oxford University Press & the highly documented narratives of Thomas Pellow are not inferior to the previous references in that section… Especially as the previous reference in that section is a New York Times opinion piece. Sara1985Wiki (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

that is simply disingenuous since you're assuming bad faith, let me tell you what's disingenuous. 1) citing sources without page numbers (to make verifiability extremely difficult). 2) citing authors that are not historians in an article about history. 3) attributing made-up content to sources: I checked "Contours of the World Economy 1-2030 AD: Essays in Macro-Economic History" and I can't see the mention of Berbers and Arabs being Barbary pirates. On which page does it say whatever you're attributing to it? M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

“I can't see the mention of Berbers and Arabs being Barbary pirates” - Why? There are so many references to Moors, natives, North Africans, Arabs & Berbers alike in both sources, in reference to the piracy and slave raiding. They can be found in the online the ebooks, so apologies for not specifically referring to some of the exact pages. Here’s a few examples: In the “A New Deadly Foe” section in White Gold, there is referencing to expelled Moriscos, from when they “forge alliances with pirates from Algiers and Tunis who had been preying on Christian shipping in the Mediterranean for more than a century”. It then also states that only “some of them European”. In the Oxford resource (page 213) there is an entire section on the Arabic Moroccan Sultan Moulay Ismael stating “Moroccan pirates, based in Salé and Rabat, attacked European ships in the north Atlantic and made coastal raids on England, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the Americas, to take Christian prisoners they sold as slaves. Moulay Ismael resisted persistent British diplomacy which attempted to stop these activities”. This information also further backs up other evidence and referenced sources currently within this article, such as: “In 1198 the problem of Barbary piracy and slave-taking was so great that the Trinitarians, a religious order, were founded to collect ransoms and even to exchange themselves as ransom for those captured and pressed into slavery in North Africa. In the 14th century, Tunisian corsairs became enough of a threat to provoke a Franco-Genoese attack on Mahdia in 1390, also known as the "Barbary Crusade". Morisco exiles of the Reconquista and Maghreb pirates added to the numbers, but it was not until the expansion of the Ottoman Empire and the arrival of the privateer and admiral Kemal Reis in 1487 that the Barbary corsairs became a true menace to shipping from European Christian nations..” This era in time is fascinating, which is why I believe it is important for this article to properly reflect the history’s and stories of most of pirates and regions involved. Sara1985Wiki (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to cite the exact page so that I can verify what you attributed to it about the Arabs and Berbers. M.Bitton (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

From the White Gold book? It’s 4 pages on from the Title Section I supplied above - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=u57oxlgHhzQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gb_mobile_entity&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&hl=en&gl=GB&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=forge%20alliances%20with%20pirates%20from%20Algiers%20and%20Tunis%20who%20had%20been%20preying%20on%20Christian%20shipping%20in%20the%20Mediterranean%20for%20more%20than%20a%20century&f=false Sara1985Wiki (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that you haven't mentioned the source that I checked (interesting). Anyway, Where is that second unreliable source does it say Slave raids were conducted largely by Arabs and Berbers rather than Ottoman Turks> Please be specific. M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I supplied the page name on the second source. Both sources have endless references referring to the origins of their pirates - Whether it be Moroccans, Tunisians, Algerians, Moors, Arabs, North Africans, etc… You know very well that is referring to the native Berbers and Arabs of the region. There also are other sources referring to Maghreb pirates earlier on in this Wikipedia article as well, which back up this point further. The second source is even referring to the Arabic Dynasty in Morocco that expanded the trade there, and the name I supplied to you “Mouley Ismael” has well documented origins as well. Here’s the contents of the Oxford University Press resource if you care to read it: http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/11295/1/116%20.%20Angus_Maddison.pdf Sara1985Wiki (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your WP:OR. All I need is for you to supply the part that supports what you added to the article (quoted above). M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I see you messaged “I suggest you start by addressing the issues that have been raised on the talk page” after I used the exact same currently used source and phrased it word for word when I tried to expand that section again. - “Tinniswood also mentions that Tunis, especially, was an international rogues’ gallery in which Arabs, Berbers and other African nomads assimilated with Turks, Greeks, Spaniards, Italians, Dutchmen, Englishmen and ethnically Greek or Balkan Janissaries, elite soldiers who owed allegiance to the Ottoman throne.” - So you will not even keep a comment if it’s word for word on a source that you have already approved in this article? It’s bad enough ignoring prior sources that clearly map out evidence on the Barbary pirates that is then strongly inferred, but to also delete a word for word reference to a source and historian you have already used is another level of subjective bias. You may not like me but that is a seriously hypocritical thing to do for an editor in your position. Sara1985Wiki (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The exact citation used - https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/books/review/Toll-t.html. - [4] Sara1985Wiki (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note: There is now a discussion about this issue at The NPOV noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

References

clean up needed

I haven't read all of the article, but at least in a couple places, it has problems, to wit 1) "The raids were such a problem that coastal settlements were seldom undertaken until the 19th century." Which coasts? 2) "Scholar Robert Davis noted that the larger picture isn't so one-sided: during a "clash of empires... taking slaves was part of the conflict," and at the same time 2 million Europeans were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa and the Near East, 1 million Muslim slaves in Europe. " The last part is grammatically incomplete. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:3DCF:A6C7:3F4:8DE5 (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)