Jump to content

Talk:Barbary pirates

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimjams101 (talk | contribs) at 09:02, 4 February 2013 (→‎Change it back to Barbary Corsairs - Barbary Pirates is not the correct term!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Change it back to Barbary Corsairs - Barbary Pirates is not the correct term!

This page should not have reverted to Barbary Pirates; it is simply the incorrect term, both currently and historically and I will lobby for it to be corrected. It is similar to tsunami. for a long time everyone called them tidal waves, but it was incorrect and it has take a concerted effort and some terrible examples for that to change. As a senior High school teacher, I know how many students see Wikipedia as the go to source for information and it should be using the correct term. I wrote my honours thesis on this topic and used over 70 primary and secondary sources in its construction; I can with reasonable justification call myself an expert on the Barbary corsairs and feel that this is a complete travesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjams101 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking Better

when I first moved this page from Barbary Pirates to here, the original version of this page was terrible and very dated in its outlook. Now it is looking much better, so congratulations to those that have been working through it. It has certainly had much of the colonial rhetoric removed and is much less biased than what it was. Although there is still work to be done. Jimjams101 (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etimology

The word "Barbary" Corsair, sounds strange especially the term "Barbary" is dehumanizing, exaggerated, absolutely weird. I strongly believe the term *Corsair* should be used, because after all they were highly innovative Sailors who influenced the development of sailing. They built ships such as the Xebec, Polocca, Felucca, Dhows and previously galleys, in fact they influenced the Design of the modern day Yacht...so lets think again they should be called: Corsairs from here on forth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindbad mughal (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name apparently derives from Barbarossa, which means red beard

I doubt it, I think that the original word is Berber, that may come from Latin barbarus. -- Error 05:24, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article states that the "pirates" are better described as "privateer". Under what nation or state were they commissioned?

All those states were totally or partially connected to the Ottoman Empire during the era. Most of the pirates (privateers) were serving as the navy man of the empire. That is why they are know as the "Turks". barfly 23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RickK

Please tell me what your problem is with my comment, rather than just deleting everything I write. You are Stupid!!!

I can't speak for Rick, but I removed it because it's an irrelevant political remark. It doesn't have anything to do with the subject of the article. Rhobite 06:45, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
I think it is very noteworthy. It proves that the Barbary pirates were seen as so much of a threat, that the USA established a fleet in a sea where they had no territories, as opposed to the Atlantic or Pacific where they did, and were able to convince the government of their country to fork out for it. - ~~R Bell
Nonsense. You keep adding it as an attack on the United States. RickK 06:52, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
That's how you see it, but not how I see it. If I put it in as such, I would have phrased it differently, probably referring to expansionism etc. Can you explain how it was an inaccurate statement?
- Raymond Bell

This article is pure PC nonsense. These pirates enslaved christians and justified it by reference to the koran and the crusades. Indeed, Jefferson when he attempted to negotiate with representatives of the barbary states employed the argument that (a)the US was in no-sense a "christian nation" and (b) that the United States did not nor could it have participated in the crusades. These are pertinent facts for anyone who wants to understand this entry.

Sale corsairs

The article does not mention the term "Sale corsairs" which seems to be commonly applied to these pirates. Back in England in those days the town was often spelled "Sally".

Barbary Pirates in the North Atlantic

I added what I know of the subject from my time in School.

Here are the links with the information that can be confirmed: (Some sites in Danish.)

http://www.tiems.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=61&index=1

http://www.tourist.fo/ew/media/Brochures/Faldari%20English.pdf

http://www.greenland-guide.dk/leif2000/news.htm

http://www.randburg.com/fa/torshavn.html

http://www.geocities.com/f18islands/suduroy.html

http://www.encislam.brill.nl/data/EncIslam/C6/COM-0546.html


Note about Mogens Heinesøn: He is well-described in Faroese literature, and by a couple of Danish and Norweigan authors, but there is little information to be found about him on the net. Swedish author Frans Bengtson may have borrowed a story of Mogens Heinesøn as a galley slave in his book "The Long Ships". Anonymous.

Edited for clarification. There were other pirates in the North Atlantic besides the Barbary pirates. Magnus Heinesøn is also spelled different in Faroese, Danish, and Norweigan, which explains some of the difficulties in Googling for references.
Different spelling include: Mogens/Magnus; Heinesøn/Heinesen/Heineson/Heinasen/Heinason.
More sources: (Sites in Danish and Norweigan.)
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/1589
http://www.dokpro.uio.no/wergeland/WIV2/WIV2018.html
http://www.norden.no/foroyar/nyheter.html
http://ffav.dk/tiltok.htm
Anonymous.

What is the basis for this?: "and members of certain families still have a distinct Middle Eastern appearance." Anyone in the Faroe Islands who do not have blue eyes and blond hair are claimed to look "Middle Eastern", there's no logical or genetic basis for this. - Habib--83.72.194.208 13:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC) ---[reply]

According to local history, Iceland was at one time nearly depopulated by the depredations of the Barbary Pirates.The last incursion is said to have taken place during the Napoleonic wars.

Basic knowledge of Icelandic history is enough to recognize this as nonsense. Rewrote the paragraph completely, hope it turns out useful. - Oskar Gudlaugsson (*April 15)

Very nice - thanks! - DavidWBrooks 16:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- Much of the article seems to have been written from a American perspective. Is a rewrite without the anti-european, pro 'war on terror' perspective possible ? A view of the barbary pirates from a native of North Africa would also be interesting. - 217.43.21.35, 11 June 2006

Feel free to add useful content. Me, I think the date of first tribute in 1784 is a little early; if it's correct, it would have had to have been the Continental Congress, as the U.S. Constitution that created today's Congress didn't take place until 1787. In any case, there should be more background information about the system of tribute and ransom employed by the Barbary pirates. Wesley 16:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find it highly unsettling that people are apparantly ready to delete information that that they find inconvenient at the drop of a hat. The Barbary Pirate raid on Iceland is indisputable historical fact, and I have reinstated the information with multiple online sources. I would ask people to please *try* to maintain a NPOV before going bananas with the edit function again. Misereor 23:00, 5 August 2006 (GMT)

Which Tripoli?

I believe the Tripoli which was a port for the Barbary pirates was Tripoli, Lebanon, not Tripoli, Libya. The link at the beginning of this article points to Tripoli, Libya. I will attempt to research this before changing it.

L. Greg 04:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are incorrect; the Encyclopedia Britannica is very clear that they operated out of North Africa, based in what is now Libya and Algeria. After all, "Barbary" comes from Barbary states, which extended west (not east) from Egypt, thus ruling out Lebanon. Interesting thought, though: I didn't even know there was a Tripoli, Lebanon! - DavidWBrooks 11:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Historiographical Lexicon

I don't have time to go into detail on this right now because I'm studying for my University Final on the subject but a couple of erratum have come to my attention.

Firstly, the Barbary "Pirates" are more correctly called Corsairs. In addition to it being the traditional name I've always heard them called, it more aptly describes their political situation. For clarification on what I'm talking about:

Pirate: Someone who robs or plunders for personal gain

Corsair: A pirate with a letter of Marque or other form of permission or patronage from a Government Body or Monarch

Privateer: A war-time Corsair

The Barbary Corsairs were not private individuals but more like guerrilla seamen for their nations. Additionally the Barbary states had at most times official support and patronage from the Ottoman Empire, reinforcing the corsair-nature of their activities.


My second big point is that The Ottoman Empire is referred to in this article as Turkey and the Ottomans as Turks. This is not correct. Yes the Ottoman empire began in turkey and the Original Sultans were turkish, but they have been more properly referred to as Ottomans since Osman in the middle ages. Besides this, by the period this article is concerned with, the Ottomans had incorporated so many nations and come to comprise such a vast Diaspora, including Sultans of numerous ethnicities, that you cannot properly refer to any aspect outside of turkey as Turkish.

I encourage anyone to consult modern historiographical practices on this subject and update the article accordingly, or as I said, I'll return when I have time to do it myself


Charon96 14:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with charon96 and have swapped the entries so that they reflect this. This isssue is a reflection of the colonial discourse that still surrounds former colonies, particularly African ones. This article really needs a thorough going through and its problems have most likely arisen because the article is based on an old Britannica article, written when very few people would have questioned the justification and motivation of taking over these countries or look at it from their point of view. My Honours Thesis was on the Barbary Corsairs, so I do know what I am talking about(Jimjams101).

Spanish Expedition on Algiers in 1775

In 1775 the Spanish under Charles III sent his navy and 22,000 men to Algiers to end the razzias on the Spanish coast, well before the 1781 US expedition.

--81.202.158.49 18:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After 1815

I tagged this section as having a POV problem. It reads overwhelmingly like an account copied from a 19th century text, with all the biases and assumptions inherent in that. The fact that, unlike the rest of the article, the text is whole, without any citations (and hardly any wiki links) makes me wonder if this isn't the case after all. Ford MF (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the only change needed is to replace "universally" with "by the Christian powers". I will make that change and remove the tag. If I may say so, I see a lot more bias inherent in your comments (that if Whites were mistreated by non-Whites, they probably deserved it, the wicked racist imperialists) than in the text you are complaining about. Luwilt (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

raids on North America?

The current revision claims that they raided North America. Which part, precisely? Florida? Newfoundland? New England? Or did they attack ships sailing from North America, but not the continent itself? 71.248.115.187 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A silly question...

The article talks about Barbary corsairs "preying on Christian and other non-Islamic shipping" in the Western Mediterranean. What other religions are we talking about here - buddhism ?Boulet rouge (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That`s a good point. Afaik: Islamic pirates also where a danger to "pagan" Africans, and also in the Read Sea to the nonwestern christians of Ethiopia.
Which brings us to another aspect, There is written in the head of the article that the piracy started during the crusades, when in fact these kind of piracy was part of the expansion of Islam from the beginning. I mean that`s how they get fe to Spain in the first place, it started with short raides - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazw. 62.178.137.216 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson report to Sec. State John Jay and Continental Congress

Unfortunately, the citation of the previously posted quote, like that of Michael Oren's comments (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/11/michaelOren.html) and more modern usages of the quote, contain no sources/footnotes to the original report from Jefferson.

In searching Jefferson's letters (at least those online), the only letter in 1786 regarding the Barbary Pirates is to John Adams, and is contained at the following two links: 1. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=46&division=div1; 2. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl46.htm

I have found another "second hand" citing of the Ambassador's response to Jefferson, but in a much earlier text; The Atlantic Monthly from October 1872 (http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?ammem/coll=moa&root=/moa/atla/atla0030/&tif=00419.TIF&view=50&frames=1).

Although I have updated the quote in the article to reflect the earliest source, I am still looking for the original document from Jefferson to Sec. State Jay. Studentofthe193 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of Barbary corsairs?

The article lead has the Barbary corsairs beginning their activities in the11th century; later on down it suggests them starting even as early as the 9th century, citing the attacks on Sicily, Italy, etc. Should these really be classed as corsair attacks, as opposed to ordinary warfare?

The line between piracy, privateering, and warfare isn't easy to draw, but what I think distinguishes the Barbary corsairs is that they were essentially private individuals operating with the consent of government authorities, but without being either paid or directed by those authorities. They struck where they wanted, lived off the sale of stolen wealth and people, and owed the government only a percentage of the take. Is that really what was going on in Italy and Sicily during the 9th through 11th centuries? Pirate Dan (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions in the Bagnios compared to conditions in America

The current entry doesn't make much sense, but I don't know how to correct it. It says that by the 18th century the slaves were running their own shops and bars in the bagnios, but that such amenities were as common to those slaves as to their American counterparts.

I don't know much about the conditions in the slave bagnios of North Africa, but I do know enough about American slavery to know that American slaves weren't allowed to own real estate, and so couldn't run their own bars and shops. So either the statement that Barbary states' slaves ran their bars and shops has to be wrong, or the statement that these amenities were equally common to American slaves has to be wrong. Can someone clarify? Pirate Dan (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you, mate. The entry about bagnios being similar to the conditions of American slaves is highly tenuous and unreferenced at that. It appears to be an effort to relate the entry to America or to make some point about moral relativism. Neither is appropriate here, so I'm getting rid of that sentence. The Cap'n (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Tinniswood, Pirates of Barbary

I've edited and added some info from the recent NY Times review of this book [1] and added it as Further reading. What was new to me was that (per the review) "the most notorious corsairs were European renegades who had learned the trade on privateers", and in peacetime, some "brought previously unknown seafaring expertise to the business of Barbary piracy." Ian W. Toll, the Times reviewer, notes that, rather than a "clash of civilizations" between Christianity & Islam, "Barbary piracy was a commercial enterprise, offering a handsome livelihood" to the pirates.

I haven't read the book, so someone who has might want to elaborate on Tinniswood's observations. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the sexual aspect

Did I not read somewhere that they wanted young Christian boys to sodimise ? That sounds more plausible than some revenge for crusades tosh especially given that Turkey had once been the seat of the Christian Roman empire, the Hagia Sophia started out as a church etc etc 81.109.247.189 (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, having read something "somewhere" doesn't warrant it being entered as fact. Making the extraordinary claim that an entire civilization engaged in mulitple wars in order to satisfy their rampant pedophilia requires some extraordinary evidence. On the flip side, there's massive amounts of evidence supporting lingering cultural animosity due to the Crusades.
Also, I'm unclear on your point about the Hagia Sophia, et al. 1) What does turning a church into a mosque have to do with anally raping children? and 2) Doesn't that further support the position that the Turks were motivated by territorial and monetary gains, not perversion? The Cap'n (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
There is a reference in David Hebb's Piracy and the English Government to the corsairs having raped the male sailors of one of their captive ships, although I've given the book back to the library and don't have a page number or details to hand.
However, I've seen no evidence that sex was anything like the major reason for the corsairs' raids. The Turks, like anybody else, were well over 90% heterosexual, and if they wanted sex slaves they bought female slaves from the Circassians, just as the Europeans did. Geoffrey Parker, The World: An Illustrated History, p. 176. The Barbary states took slaves mainly for domestic service, to man their galleys, and extort a huge profit in ransoms; economic motives covered by religious excuses, as we see in many other cases in world history. The corsairs might rape from time to time when they felt like it, but that wasn't the main idea. Pirate Dan (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India?

These raids were often in retaliation against the killing and forced conversions that Muslims living in Spain were facing, also in retaliation against raids carried out by the Portuguese on Muslim ruled India, where many were killed or taken as slaves.

I find the connection to India a little far-fetched. Fair enough about the Moriscos, as Salé was essentially founded by refugees from Spain, but India is a little too far and this is not the modern world, etc --Phagopsych (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the retaliation issue's not touched on by the single link that works; that's the first in the series of three. The second's defunct. The third (neither linked nor a full citation, so I'm only guessing here) might refer to the 16th century Tuhfat Al Mujahidin, which deals with Muslim resistance to the Portuguese takeover at Malabar, amongst other things; the author (a Malabar Muslim) might well have interpreted or justified the Barbary corsair raids as retaliation or jihad - if this review is anything to go by. But I'm just guessing wildly here, and besides, one author does not a general viewpoint make. Haploidavey (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the last two cites, as per comments above. The first was defunct, and could not be linked despite a search. I presume the other was offered to support the raids as "often retaliatory". I'm sure they might well have been justified as that by some contemporaries (see Tuhfat Al Mujahidin above) but we need a proper source, and I've tagged accordingly. Haploidavey (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retaliation for the mistreatment of the Moriscos and Marranos might have motivated some of the attacks against Spain, and Phagopsych is right about New Sale being founded by exiles, but since the corsairs happily ravaged Italy, France, England, Ireland, and even Iceland, their depredations as a whole cannot be explained away as mere retaliation against their former oppressors. Pirate Dan (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates

I've been reading The Pirate Wars by Peter Earle, and had a look at this article. As far as I've understood from Earle, the Barbary corsairs always sailed with some type of permission from the rulers of the Barbary States. So that would make them corsairs or privateers, but not pirates. So why are they consistently referred to as pirates in the article?

Peter Isotalo 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Hebb's [i]Piracy and the English Government[/i] disagrees. It says that Algiers and Tripoli were formally subject to the Sultan of Morocco, who most often did not authorize them to attack Christian shipping, but they did it illegally anyway. TO be sure, there were many occasions also when the Sultan of Morocco or the Ottoman Sultan did grant letters of marque, but much like the buccaneers of Jamaica and Tortuga, the Barbary sailors didn't care too much about whether they had legal permission to attack their enemies or about respecting the limits of those permissions.
I do think the word "corsair" would be better, because (again like "buccaneer") it covers both licensed privateers and illegal pirates. Pirate Dan (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a workable compromise.
Peter Isotalo 16:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose we merge the content from the Barbary wars article here. Both cover the same subject matter. Alan.ca (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if a simple merger is preferable. There are many articles addressing various aspects of these event. What is needed is a structure; possibly an umbrella article (your 'merged' article) with more detail in lower-level articles; along with some boundaries on such articles. - Lugnad (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completed the merger today by ensuring the few references were distributed to this article or the sub articles the Barbary Wars article was referencing. Where content did not seem to overlap I roughed it into this article. Hopefully having it all in one place will make it easier for us to consolidate the content and branch it appropriately as need arises. I think the next steps are to improve the content in this article and review the slicing of the article at a later date. Alan.ca (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on the development of the USA

I am merging in the content from the Barbary Wars article and I have found an interesting paragraph that does not have any references, but I find the content familiar with my readings on the subject. I want to document it here on the talk page instead of losing it in the merger versus integrating the content that has not direct sources. I am looking for community feedback on its integration:

When the United States military efforts of the early 19th century were successful against the pirates, partisans of the Democratic-Republicans contrasted their presidents' refusals to buy off the pirates by paying tribute with the failure of the preceding Federalist administration to suppress the piracy. The Federalist Party had adopted the slogan, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute," but had failed to end the attacks on merchant ships. The phrase was attributed to Charles C. Pinckney in the course of the XYZ Affair; however, historians have determined that the sentence originated with Sen. Robert Goodloe Harper.[citation needed]


Alan.ca (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Barbary corsairs → Barbary Corsairs – It would make more sense to have the page name capitalised considering the term "Barbary Corsair" is capitalised throughout the article and that titles should be capitalised anyway. Lithium (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Wiki doesn't capitalized article titles, per WP:CAPS. This phrase shouldn't be capitalized in running text, and you see here. The current setup is screwy. This article should be primary for "corsair". Corsair is now an article on French privateers, which is a misunderstanding. If a word is of French origin, it does not follow that the primary English-language meaning relates to France. Kauffner (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per evidence in book n-grams that lowercase is more normal, and per MOS:CAPS that says we prefer to lowercase when it's not consistently caps in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it was mostly lowercase in the article already; I fixed the few places that were not. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The arguments in support are far more persuasive, and in line with WP:AT, than those in oppose. Jenks24 (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Barbary corsairs → Barbary pirates – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Compare Google hits (phrase in quotes and -wikipedia): 306,000 for pirates, 90,000 for corsairs. In Scholar, pirates win 3,960 to 1,560; in JSTOR, 714 to 291. This move also aligns the article with Category:Barbary pirates. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Not really counterintuitive at all, since the majority of North African nations are former French colonies and speak French as a second language, and France was one of the dominant powers in the Mediterranean. In any case, a) Wikipedia is not revisionist; we use the terms that were used, not terms that may be more "understandable" today, and b) "corsair" is not a French word; it's an English word with French origins (as have many English words). Big, big difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't believe in updating language to make it understandable to modern readers? Perhaps the Julius Caesar article can be rewritten in Latin. Kauffner (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be ridiculous. That's not what I said and you know it perfectly well. "Corsair" is as much modern English as "pirate". I've known what it means from a very young age; those who don't are obviously somewhat lacking in their historical and language education (and haven't read The Lord of the Rings, which should be made an offence in itself!). But if you haven't heard it, then an encyclopaedia like this will happily explain what it means. That's what encyclopaedias are for. If you're being picky, according to the Oxford English Dictionary the former is first recorded in English in 1549 and the latter in 1439, so "pirate" is the older word (and also comes from the French). Incidentally, the OED's definition of corsair is: "The name in the languages of the Mediterranean for a privateer; chiefly applied to the cruisers of Barbary, to whose attacks the ships and coasts of the Christian countries were incessantly exposed. In English often treated as identical with pirate, though the Saracen and Turkish corsairs were authorized and recognized by their own government as part of its settled policy towards Christendom." -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, can you explain where you're getting that definition? Wiktionary says it's a Francophone synonym, and the only geographic place mentioned there is a port on the English Channel. Also note Turkish corsair on Wiktionary, and the end of the lede of French corsairs. These sources use "Barbary pirates" as the more familiar term, suggesting the use of "corsair" in this context requires explanation. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this dictionnary gives the definition above. There is a specificity in the term corsair. - Dzlinker (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Byron's The Corsair (1814) is a about a pirate who lived on an island near Athens, nothing to do with privateers or North Africa. The article title should be the way the subject is most commonly referred to in modern times. So the etymology of "corsair" is not really relevant. That the word is listed in a "dictionary of difficult words" sounds like a pretty good reason not to use it. Kauffner (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greece is part of the Mediterranean. There were no Corsairs operating in the Caribbean, this is for sure. - Dzlinker (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Frankly, as an historian I've never seen the term "Barbary pirates", but I've seen "Barbary corsairs" many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose : Dzlinker explained the point. Barbary corsairs weren't 'pirates' since they used to get Letters of marque from their governments (Deys, Beys and Diwans), then they are more closely privateers than pirates. --Omar-Toons (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Whether pirate is or is not correct or a good or accurate descriptor or whether corsair by its stand-alone meaning is more accurate is irrelevant. The Google search in the nomination is also not strong evidence as a web search does not concentrate reliable sources (note the language at article titles to default to book and news archive searches). We title topics by the title the English speaking world uses for topics predominantly. Here, Barbary pirates is, by a weighty margin, what English language sources use to denote this topic. A news archive search finds 4,180 results verses 354 results – about a 1:11 margin, and if you limit the results to the last ten years, the disparity is more extreme: 277 results verses 17 results – about a 1:16 margin. A book search finds 8,340 results verses 3,530 results. Highbeam research shows 669 results verses 68, the Times of London has 24 verses 10; the Sydney Morning Herald has 7 results verses 0 for the past ten years; Australia's Trove returns 184 verses 100. Britannica names its article "Barbary pirate". Barbary Pirates is the common name in English.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barbary_pirates&oldid=536486977"