Jump to content

Talk:Barbary slave trade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paragraph on "Origins" needs a cleanup

[edit]

Especially last two sentences. Is "reputed" actually the concept that the writer of the article meant? Perhaps "known for piracy" would be better? I hesitate to make the change, not knowing either the original author's intent or the history well enough to correct anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FurnaldHall (talk • contribs) 02:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

[edit]

What is this racism on wikipedia? Everyone knows that whites were NEVER slaves! This article needs to be deleted!2601:806:4301:C100:5D7F:9053:2B22:55B (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources say otherwise. If you think "whites" were somehow exempt, please cite your sources for that claim. "Everyone knows" isn't a valid argument. Kleuske (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seems unable to recognize sarcasm... Just another "white oppression" conspiracy theorist type who thinks slave trades involving whites are deliberately covered up by some nebulous "white genocide agenda". The article is fine, nobody thinks it's "racist".

See Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful. If you have sources to back that claim, please present them. Otherwise, please remember Wikipedia is not a forum. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have sources to back up his claim because he is not sincerely making the claim that "whites were NEVER slaves". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.189.184 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Whites were never slaves. Only blacks. This article is racist and takes away from the seriousness of slavery!2601:806:4301:C100:935:8444:468D:CC39 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying this article is racist, nobody is trying to cover up the Barbary Slave Trade, stop pretending to be oppressed. If you have any useful information to contribute to this article by all means provide some credible sources and help develop it. If you're just here to cry about conspiracy theories you are not contributing information that will help develop this article.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.48.174 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blacks weren't only slaves. You clearly don't know shit about history if you think blacks were the only group of people enslaved. Yellowgirl44x44 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undercurrent of Offence

[edit]

It's also somewhat present in almost all pages on slavery. However, Wikipedia should be objective.207.161.196.71 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific complaints about the article (or other articles), or are you being offended in general? Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out specific paragraphs you feel are subjective so they can be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.48.174 (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barbary slave trade. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why Does "Berber slave trade" Have an Empty Hotlink?

[edit]

"The North African slave markets were part of the Berber slave trade." Is the "Berber slave trade" the same thing as the "Barbary slave trade"? If so, then why is there an (empty) link to the "Berber slave trade" in the Lede of the Article on the "Barbary slave trade", as if they are two different things? If they are different, it might be more useful and informative if the link to "Berber slave trade" where an internal link that went to a brief passage that differentiates between the two, else if they are the same thing, it seems to me the link should be removed and some kind of disambiguation language should be added at the beginning of the Article that explains they are the same thing. It also occurs to me that it might be a matter of perspective; this Article focuses on the slave trade from the perspective of who was involved in io it, while the (unwritten) "Berber" article is intended to discuss the slave trade in terms of the region, which seems to me to be an unnecessary distinction, but maybe not. It's confusing in it's current state, to someone that knows nothing about it.Tym Whittier (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

[edit]

With regard o the recent addition by the IP:

while most were Arabs and Berbers since the source says no such thing, my question is: why are you insisting on pushing this POV here and on the Barbary pirates article? M.Bitton (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE Unreliable source weight

[edit]

The article cites a newspaper article (!) that questions a book from Emeritus Professor Robert Davis of Ohio State University, a history professor specializing in Mediterranean history. The newspaper article says this, and I quote: "However David Earle, author of The Corsairs of Malta and Barbary and The Pirate Wars, said that Prof Davis may have erred". Grammar aside, there is no David Earle that has ever authored any book entitled "The Corsairs of Malta and Barbary and The Pirate Wars". Sure, the book exists, but it was authored by Peter Earle. Look, this is very sloppy newspapering contradicting a book edited in Hampshire (England) and New York (USA) by Palgrave Macmillan, which Wikipedia describes "a British academic and trade publishing company headquartered in the London Borough of Camden. Its programme includes textbooks, journals, monographs, professional and reference works in print and online."

Now, I am not saying that Davis' methodology is perfect —though it may well be—, nor that Peter Earle may not have valid criticisms, but I am saying that we need a better source for any Peter Earle criticisms. The Wikipedia policy for WP:RS says: Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics, and furthermore WP:SCHOLARSHIP recommends material issued by "well-regarded academic presses" (like academic press Palgrave Macmillan) so it absolutely is WP:UNDUE to give overdue weight to an unreliable news report when contradicting a reliable source from a specialist in the subject matter. XavierItzm (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The UNDUE argument also applies to Robert Davis' claims (that's all they are). The Guardian's article is reporting what another historian said, and while it appears that they made a small mistake (David instead of Peter), the book title leaves no doubt about the author they are referring to. As far as I know, the Guardian doesn't attribute made-up claims to historians. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the failed verification tag that was inappropriately added to an inline citation that actually supports what is contained in the article. The Template:Failed verification is pretty clear on when this tag should be added. The text (attributed to a historian) is not in Wikipedia's voice and the Guardian's article is used by others.
I also replaced the second source that was tagged (appropriately in this case) with one that actually supports the statement.
The No David Earle exists that has cautioned anything (diff) is a claim that needs to be substantiated using reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed material violating copyright without prejudice to it being rephrased. The journalist's mistake concerning the author's first name is unfortunate. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 06:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section talking about the numbers of Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles slaves is being pushed at the end of the article and not at the start where the numbers are being talked about

[edit]

Hello, why can't I put this information " A compilation of partial statistics and patchy estimates indicates that almost 2 million Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles were seized from 1468 to 1694. Additionally, there were slaves from the Caucasus obtained by a mixture of raiding and trading. 16th- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul's slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700." from Eltis, David; Bradley, Keith; Engerman, Stanley L.; Cartledge, Paul (2011). The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521840682

at the start of the article when it talks about numbers? Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seized by whom? M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted this entire section: "Supplies from the [[Black Sea]] appear to have been even larger. A compilation of partial statistics and patchy estimates indicates that almost 2 million Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles were seized from 1468 to 1694. Additionally, there were slaves from the [[Caucasus]] obtained by a mixture of raiding and trading. 16th- and 17th-century [[customs]] statistics suggest that Istanbul's slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700.<ref name="auto"/>"
I didn't put it there, it was already there. This quote "obtained by a mixture of raiding and trading"
refers to pirates that kidnapped Eastern Europeans for the Ottoman Empire. Most of the pirates that kidnapped Europeans for the Ottoman Empire were the Barbary pirates that worked under the Ottoman Empire. Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Barbary slave trade. The Slavery in the Ottoman Empire is another subject. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know no Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles were kidnapped by the Barbary for the Ottoman Empire, especially around the Black Sea which the Barbary pirates sailed as well? Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the article. M.Bitton (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article had the quote you deleted. Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained why and see no reason to repeat what was said. All I can suggest is that you familiarize yourself with the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Nothing to do with the Barbary slave trade" but gave no argument, like a book or historian that says Barbary pirates never, ever kidnapped, enslaved and sold Eastern Europeans from the Black Sea to the Ottoman Empire. How are you so sure it never happened?
You might say that "Nothing to do with the Barbary slave trade" but all these kidnapping are in the context of selling slaves to the Ottoman Empire. So can I make a sub-section titled something like "Slave trade in the Ottoman Empire"? Barbary pirates worked for the Ottomans after all. Ninhursag3 (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No you can't make a sub-section about unrelated events. If you have reason to believe that what you're saying about he black sea is true, then it shouldn't be difficult to find reliable sources about it.
BTW, the content that I deleted says "Istanbul's slave import from the Black Sea.." (obviously added by someone who doesn't know that Istanbul is not in the Barbary coast). M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood, it's not that "Istanbul is not in the Barbary coast" but that the Barbary pirates from North Africa often went to Instanbul/Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire to get the money for their kidnapped slaves, gather supplies for future voyages/raids and await new orders from their Ottoman superiors. "Istanbul's slave import from the Black Sea" just means the Ottomans got a lot of Eastern European, Balkan and Greek slaves. Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had enough of this. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS and then feel free to cite (here) the sourced content that you think belongs in the article. M.Bitton (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've had enough only when you got embarrassed that you misunderstood that quote. Again, the source is this: "Eltis, David; Bradley, Keith; Engerman, Stanley L.; Cartledge, Paul (2011). The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521840682" and it would fit really well in a future sub-section titled "Barbary pirates in the bigger Ottoman slave trade context". Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ignore the asinine comment:
Please quote from that source the part that you want to add to the article and don't forget to cite the page number. I expect to see Barbary pirates, black sea, poles and everything else that you've been banging on about. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ignore the asinine comment.
Except I'm not the one who added that text but was already there for I don't know how long but it was buried at the end of the article. Ninhursag3 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804
page 151: Chapter 6: White Slavery "Although the regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli were technically under Ottoman suzerainty, the Sublime Porte exercised very little real authority in this area."
page 144-145: "Ottoman conquests from the late fourteenth century flooded the heartlands of Islam with a variety of Christian slaves. The collapse of the rump of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, followed by that of Christian states in the Balkans, yielded huge numbers of captives, augmented by daring raids well beyond the limits of Muslim conquest.[...] A compilation of partial statistics and patchy estimates indicates that Muslims seized a little fewer than two million Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles from 1468 to 1694. Additional slaves from the Caucasus, especially Circassia, were channeled through the Crimea and were obtained by a mixture of raiding and trading. Spotty sixteenth- and seventeenth-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul’s slave imports from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700. In addition, there was an overland trade into Anatolia from the Caucasus." Ninhursag3 (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: nothing to do with the Barbary pirates, just like I said. I consider the issue solved. M.Bitton (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Consensus is that the Barbary pirates were under Ottoman suzerainty and that there was a wider Ottoman European slave trade in which the Barbary pirates participated as well. Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cite policies that you clearly don't understand. M.Bitton (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Were the Barbary pirates under Ottoman suzerainty? Yes or no? If yes, there should be a sub-section. Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them but not all, although that's irrelevant. Again, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, btw in Eltis, David; Bradley, Keith; Engerman, Stanley L.; Cartledge, Paul (2011). The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521840682 page 153 it also says ". According to Robert Davis’s careful calculations, a million to a million and a quarter Christian captives entered the Maghrib from 1530 to 1780. Of these unfortunates, it is estimated that fewer than 5 percent escaped or were ransomed. From 1520 to 1830, Algiers alone imported about six hundred twenty-five thousand."
So I'm gonna add this source as well. Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's already cited in the article and disputed by other historians. M.Bitton (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804 was no longer cited in the article because you deleted that source, but this new quote specifically talks about the Barbary pirates, not the Ottomans: " According to Robert Davis’s careful calculations, a million to a million and a quarter Christian captives entered the Maghrib from 1530 to 1780. Of these unfortunates, it is estimated that fewer than 5 percent escaped or were ransomed. From 1520 to 1830, Algiers alone imported about six hundred twenty-five thousand."
So I don't understand why you want to delete even this information. Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ninhursag3: I also suggest you read WP:ONUS and refrain from edit warring to impose your baseless POV. M.Bitton (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it says "wider Ottoman context" it should be allowed to give context to the history of the Barbary pirates and their relations with other states. Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it absolutely shouldn't. For the nth time, this article is specific to the Barbary pirates. M.Bitton (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked systematically at all the recent edits, but with regard to these particular passages (about the supply of slaves from the Black Sea, Russia, etc), indeed I don't see how it belongs in the current article. Certainly some information about relations with the wider Ottoman context can be relevant, but it should be linked directly to this topic (e.g. if the Ottoman sultans tried to intervene in the slave trade of the regencies, or if the slaves captured here were sold in other parts of the empire, etc). Slave acquisition in the Black Sea or other regions far removed from the western Mediterranean are not related to the Maghreb, unless the source specifically says so, which it doesn't. There is another article for Slavery in the Ottoman Empire, as pointed out.
Remember also that "Barbary states" here also includes Morocco, from which similar piracy operated outside Ottoman suzerainty, so this is not a strictly Ottoman phenomenon. R Prazeres (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for weighing in. Unfortunately, all attempts at making them understand this have fallen on deaf ears. M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you have the gall to think you have some kind of moral high ground when you throw insults at people, calling them "asinine": Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
Wikipedia:No personal attacks
And I'm the one who was blocked for one day because you reported me for putting an already written paragraph that was at the end of the article, somewhere at the start of the article. Nobody cared about it before. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. Please look at the edit history, I didn't add the paragraph: "A compilation of partial statistics and patchy estimates indicates that almost 2 million Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles were seized from 1468 to 1694. Additionally, there were slaves from the Caucasus obtained by a mixture of raiding and trading. 16th- and 17th-century customs statistics suggest that Istanbul's slave import from the Black Sea may have totaled around 2.5 million from 1450 to 1700." It was already there but near the end of the wikipedia aricle, I just wanted to put that paragraph in the context of the "Extent" sub-section where the numbers and statistics are. But @M.Bitton kept deleting my edit so I had the idea of a "Barbary pirates in the wider Ottoman slave trade context" sub-section where that paragraph would have fit in perfectly especially since at the start I put this informatiom from the The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521840682 "Although the regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli were technically under Ottoman suzerainty, the Ottomans exercised very little real authority in deciding specific raids of the Barbary pirates."
Another thing: He started insulting me and calling me "asinine": Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Wikipedia:No personal attacks Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman slave trade

[edit]

Hello @Skitash, i'm afraid i have to agree with the IP, though (he should have better formulated his point). The Maghreb regencies were de facto and largely independent. But, they were regencies... Kingdoms ruled by representatives of the King. The Ottoman Sultan was nominally king of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, but he didn't effectively rule there, the rulers were therefore regents who were elected locally and acted independently. In Ottoman terminology, the regencies were called "Odjaks of the west" or Western military governments, heriditary in Tunis and Tripoli and republican in Algiers. the rulers were Ottoman elites who were politically affiliated to their Maghrebi states. So we're still within the Ottoman framework. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right when you said they were independent in all but name, but this nominal affiliation to the Ottoman Empire is not without its importance, not only it was a religious obligation for islamic states to "recognize" the caliphate, but they needed caliphal legitimacy to rule a part of Dar al Islam, represented by the Ottoman Empire. this caliphal legitimacy was important in the eyes of the population and the military elites alike. which is why we're talking about a "Regency", like Historian Lmnouar merouche said, it was not a directly ruled province, but an "Imperial estate", or like Historian Al jilali said, the Ottoman Empire was like a commonwealth for the barbary states. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. However, broadly referring to them as "Ottoman-ruled" might be an overstatement. Perhaps we could amend that part to "... involved the capture and selling of European slaves at slave markets in the Barbary states, which were largely independent regencies under nominal Ottoman rule"? I suppose we could also include both the Arab and Ottoman slave trades in the lead. Skitash (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Largely independent Ottoman Barbary states is Ok in my opinion for a first mention, because this would neither undermine their statehood nor their autonomy and large independence, thought it's important to note they were Ottoman in affiliation. wether this has to do with arab slave trade is related to what RS sources say, if we find that this is the case we'll leave it. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I've gone ahead and made the changes. Skitash (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man :) Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Skitash (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nourerrahmane and Skitash: stating that the Barbary slave trade was part of another slave trade implies that there was some trade relations between the two, when in actual fact, there was none. While the regencies were nominally part of the Ottoman empire, the corsairs (the slave traders) were financed by the locals and only interested in making a good return for the investors (usually through ransoming of the captives). The stable version of the article didn't include such a thing (which was added recently) and that I suggest we remove for the reasons that I stated as well as the fact that it's unsourced). M.Bitton (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

[edit]

@XavierItzm: where did you get enslaved in Africa by the Berbers from? M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the books. Now, I've removed that which hurts you and you cite, so now, you have no excuse to delete. XavierItzm (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which books?
that which hurts you what do you mean by that? Please elaborate and refrain from edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two books I referenced. And you just violated WP:AGF because the books do support the statement. I would revert, if I were you. XavierItzm (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific: which book supports the statement "enslaved in Africa by the Berbers"? Don't forget to mention the page number.
that which hurts you what do you mean by that? Please elaborate.
you just violated WP:AGF that's something that you would need to substantiate by addressing the above first. M.Bitton (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you violated violated WP:AGF because you wrote you misrepresented a source, since the books fully support the statement. I had page numbers in my edit. Please desist. I would revert, if I were you. XavierItzm (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific: which book supports the statement enslaved in Africa by the Berbers? Don't forget to mention the page number.
that which hurts you what do you mean by that? Please elaborate.
you just violated WP:AGF that's something that you would need to substantiate by addressing the above first. M.Bitton (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Xavier included page numbers in their edit so I don't know why you're asking again here, but page 15 of Davis lists those groups as being enslaved in Barbary Africa, and page 87 describes Berbers as slave owners. Hi! (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the definition of WP:SYNTH. M.Bitton (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full text of the book I cited, with textual citation and page numbers. As you see these Berbers of Africa enslaved the nationalities I cited: 

Sultan Moulay Ismail’s slaves came from virtually every corner of Europe... There were Frenchmen, and Dutchmen held in Meknes, as well as Greeks, Portuguese and Italians. A few came from Ireland and Scandinavia; some were from as far afield as Russia and Georgia. But the largest group was formed by the sultan’s Spanish slaves, which usually numbered several thousand. These men and women were also the most miserable.

You have violated WP:AGF. I would revert if I were you. XavierItzm (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't let you evade the raised issues (by entertaining your WP:OR), so don't bother trying.
The quote that you provided doesn't support the enslaved in Africa by the Berbers statement that you added to the article. In other words, I was right.
you just violated WP:AGF I will ignore this (you'll be expected to substantiate this claim in the appropriate venue).
that which hurts you what do you mean by that? Please elaborate. M.Bitton (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbary_slave_trade&oldid=1261217372"