Talk:Dutch–Algerian War (1715–1726)

Rewrite

Needs a rewrite, looks like its made by a child, and extremely biased. I will be rewriting it.GlobalReference221 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. GlobalReference221 (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

GlobalReference221 Hello; i find this war hardly a dutch victory, not mentionning the losses in its merchent fleet and the ransome of its slaves, it continued to pay tribute to Algiers, and couldn't compete against the british shipping in the area who had better relations with Algiers; Also, there were no major Dutch expedition against Algiers that seriously harmed the Algerian activites in the mediterranean, basically, the Dutch didn't gain anything from this war; quite the contrary. This article also needs to be reffed with other english frenchn and arab sources. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, the Dutch asked for a Mediterranean passport, which the dutch sailors had to carry when entering the strait of gibraltar and present to the Algerian privateers who had the other half of that passport, that's what basically prevented these sailors from being captured and enslaved. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

no one cares what you think its what historians think, and everything is mentioned? their losses, the ransoms are mentioned too, tribute too and the competeting too? and there really was such expeditions, lots. as the blockade on gibbraltar i also put lots of english and french sources. Historians who study this such as magnus ressel and patrick landwehr call it a dutch victory i dont see a single historian calling this a algerian victory or inconclusive its very clear who won GlobalReference221 (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Well you should care since i'm looking at the context here, closing the Gibraltar straight may have convinced the Dey to accept the Big Dutch tribute rather than continue praying on its ships, but this is is still far from it being a "Dutch victory", so putting aside the cherry pick, Dutch was tributary to Algiers and failed to reach both its short term objective (ending tribute) and long term objective (influance in mediterranean trade). Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

[1] what kind of victory that solidifies the tributary status of the victor towards the losing side ? that's why i hate cherry picking, it misleads readers and corrupts information. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

corrupt information? i cite from historians.,ZERO historians talk about an algerian victory? , and the dutch never had an objective to end tribute? that is your made up bullshit, the dutch theyre only objective was to end the war as it harmed theyre trade which algiers did not want, only until pressure from the change of naval ballances and pressure from other countries, and a harming blockade ofcourse they would finally accept peace its no where close to an algiers victory. I have had extensive discussions on these type of who won debates such as on the first anglo dutch war. However in the end it comes down to what most historians say, clearly zero historians talk of anything close to an algerian victory, and every historian that did talk about an outcome calls it a dutch victory, tribute doesnt discard this fact, as daviddijkgraaf said: "Wikipedia articles about history should be based on historians, not the opinion of editors" GlobalReference221 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Well assuming that the Dutch endgame was becoming an Algerian tributary for a whole century then yeah, this is a "Dutch Victory". Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Historians focus more about the tributary status of the Dutch which has been solidified, they also focus on the Dutch economic loss in the aftermath of this war, no I won’t remove that « Duch victory » from the infobox but leaving it alone like that would be misleading. The Dutch suffered from this war and the victory for the Dutch was seen as achieving peace but peace at what cost ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

it is all put into the aftermath, i do not see the problem? and the Magnus ressel quite litterely says the sacrifises are justified. GlobalReference221 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

References

"War"

Would it be possible to break the "wall of text" in this section up into perhaps 3 or 4 sections? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible WP:EW and WP:Cherrypicking

I would like to reach a WP:Consensus regarding this user @GlobalReference221. He seems to be engaged in an WP:EW and not respecting WP:Verifiability, as per previous discussion shows, the reasult of the war seems to be cherrypicked. While i'm not asking to remove the reasult from the infobox, this still could be understood outside its context, as per source, the Dutch victory was considered as achieiving peace with Algiers mainly. However this should be supported by the fact that the Dutch were tributary to Algiers and actually had to pay an annual tribute in exhange for this peace: [2] [3], Also the sources clearly point out to a French and British involvement that convinced Algiers to accept the peace, and per source, this user reverted the number of Dutch captives according to John baptiste wolf under the pretext of not access to the source. I quote per source: "In the years between 1714 and 1720 forty Dutch ships were made prizes and about seventy five hundred Netherland seamen became slaves." Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This smells like Canvassing, which isn't apropriate behavior.

@GlobalReference221 and @Nourerrahmane. You two should be able to talk it out in a civil way. There was barely an attempt DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't knew this was inappropriate behavior since i usually contribute with these editiors. Well this editor's last revert seems more of WP: I just don't like it since he removed a sourced content, the fact that he can't access it doesn't mean it's the case for other editors, i just quoted the source. Also, i beleive that a more comprehensive look into the end of this conflict would give a more appropriate reasult rather than just sticking to the word "Victory" since most sources emphasize about reaching a peace treaty where the Dutch became tributary. Also more could be said about this editor's way of talking : "BS, who cares about what you think, and so on... Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that @GlobalReference221 should change his way of talking. It is not constructive, although it is probably because pages like this get vandalized so often. I am sure he can enter a normal debate.

And a question, if Dutch paid tribute before the war as well, why would that be a result of the war? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Paying tribute to Algiers was a reason not to be attacked by it, this was foreign policy for Algiers, Although in this case it had to be convinced especially when the Britsh and French showed signs of involvment per sources. A suitable reasult would be just a "Peace treaty", which in fact didn't allow the Dutch to have their expected share in the mediterranean trade. So i can hardly agree with leaving "Dutch Victory" in the infobox without context. Which is acheiving a peace treaty with Algiers. profitable or not in the short term. Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my way of talking i agree that was wrong. The bellingerent thing, you must understand france was not involved at all let me cite magnus resse: " France had not been involved at all; the correspondence between Versailles and its Algerian consul does not mention the talks until the signing of the Dutch-Algerian treaty. We can therefore conclude that peace was achieved more by military might than by diplomacy.", and Britain did not declare war, just closed its ports, which is not bellingerency.

The context is the article, you should stop worrying about only the infobox the Dutch paying tribute is not a result its a simple aftermath and it was like this before the war too, "Dutch victory" is expliciy said by historians so its the clear result, sorry but wikipedia is not based on your opions its based on historians opinions.

that 7500 in 1715-1720 is fake, its impossible if u look at "Table. Ships passing the Sound eastwards coming from a Portuguese harbor 31" from magnus ressel his article its impossible with those kind of ships also counting them putting up new regulations limiting the amount of sailors that can abourd ships. 7500 is a massive psuedo number.

The source i cannot even access and when i search the sentence you typed (since its on google books i should be able to find it) nothing shows up.

The article is fine like this. GlobalReference221 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

mate i have the whole book on internet archive check the pages i listed, if you can't access that's your problem not mine, and i will just reiterate what was said earlier, don't push your opinions when there is a well known RS dealing with this matter. And btw, this number is nothing when it comes to the Barbary states and Algiers especially, since it was known for Barbary slave trade.

Again you're pushing an opinion eventhough the sources clearly mention the causes of the peace treaty, i give little intrest in your commentary because it's inadequate with what the sources say, the Dutch were all too happy for the peace and payed tribute, and this after Algiers had witnessed the implication of France and Britain, this is clearly mentionned. So i'm not against what historians say, i'm against your cherry picking. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

[4] I mean that's some big money for an annual tribute after a war, that's why i beleive that "Dutch victory" doesn't belong to the infobox and should really be put in a context that historians wrote and you try to avoid, this if we want to give this article a comprehensive view. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

listen for the 100th time your opinion does not matter its the opinion of historians, i dont avoid this i put this in the aftermath? Read the rules also: "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". " So the tribute part is in the right place(aftermath). The rules for combatants are those who used their forces. You say im pushing my opinions but in reality it is only you. The article is 100% fine like this. Just supporting a country, does NOT make it a combatant GlobalReference221 (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Look i said what i had to say, there should be a WP:Consenus for this Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@NourerrahmaneIt is true though that you mainly rely on your own opinion. The war has been called a Dutch victory by various historians and the payment of tribute was not a result of the war.

And I can't access your source for the 7,500 sailors on the internet archive. Could you maybe provide a link or upload a screenshot on wikimedia? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@DavidDijkgraaf here: [5] p. 309-310, and per source below (Ressel): "In September 1726 the Dutch agreed to pay an annual tribute of war materials worth roughly 50,000 guilders in exchange for peace. Peace was ratified, and the Dutch duly paid their tribute for the rest of the century." Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Since, the sources are then in conflict over the captives it is best to look for additional sources to see what the most common estimate is. If there isn't any than it might be best to remove the amount from the infobox or only include it in a footnote.

And @GlobalReference221, could you tell me were Ressel says an Algerian defeat? I can't find it DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

i quoted it in the reference " Dutch finally able to ‘defeat’ the Algerians", in french the ' is not there. GlobalReference221 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane@DavidDijkgraaf i mean my sources are contemporary, and here are some more

Lords of the Sea: A History of the Barbary Corsairs - P 179 1714-1720 900 captured

From Bayle to the Batavian Revolution

Essays on Philosophy in the Eighteenth-Century Dutch Republic page 232 says 900 in 1714-1720

the sources in the infobox also dont even come close to 7500, i dont think any other source does

Imo the sources used by magnus ressel from van hoornbeek (also contemprary) is still the best one to use

The 7500 also should not be used as it counts captured from before the war was declared GlobalReference221 (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't find "Dutch finally able to ‘defeat’ the Algerians" anywhere, nonethenless, Ressel didn't say it in this article's body, regarding the other source, you insist that Britain and France were not involved yet still quote the "Victory" that the website clearly claims as a reasult of combined efforts from the Dutch, British and French powers in the very same sentence. In addition, this sentence was brought out in the very end without further details or explanations or even sources. We can deduce from both sources you posted that this "Dutch Victory" is fictitious to say the least. Authors don't really give importance to this matter as much as they care about how Dutch shipping in the mediterranean was impacted by this war, that included paying tribue for safe passage and loss of valuable profit in favor of the British. If what you're doing isn't Cherry pick then i don't know what it is.

2- you better read the source carefully, it specifies that this started in 1714... and for what is worth, John wolf was used as a ref in your source (Ressel). Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

He says it in the sumarry of his article on the top, as its litteraly what happened. france was not involved at it literally mentioned by ressel " France had not been involved at all;", and BRitain was not involved to the extent of a bellingerent or combatnant, and as i said The rules for combatants are those who used their forces. It also did not start in 1714 "In December 1715 Algiers declared war on the Republic." in 1714 pirates just started attacking without war. The authors also clearly give lots of importantance to the fact that it hurt dutch shipping, a lot actually. And the favor of the british happened a bit later the first years it was in favor of the dutch. i have included litterally all of this into the article. it seems to me realy that you just have a hard time coping with it GlobalReference221 (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

1- Here's what it says :" Only with great difficulties were the Dutch finally able to ‘defeat’ the Algerians after a long conflict in the Western Mediterranean and to conclude a long-lasting peace in 1726." This means the author is not endorsing this word that you're cherry picking, rather he's emphesising about the difficult war, the peace treaty and the loss of mediterranean shipping in favor of the british, which pretty much proves what i said above. The words "defeat" and "victory" here are neither endorsed nor felt when reading yours sources, the rest of the sources about this matter don't recall a favorable outcome for the Dutch. which is why the current state of the infobox is misleading and doesn't reflect the real outcome of this war.

2- According to the source ,though the two nations were not involved militarly, the behavior of the British and the French clearly pushed the Algerians to accept the Peace, this cannot be ignored. This if we put aside the other source you listed, seems you just take what suits you from both sources without looking at the context as a way to distort infomration.

3- I won't comment about your interpretation of Wolf's account, your statement is an "interpretation" and none of the sources actually confirm it; rather this looks more like a small disagreement on the start date of the war, in fact Algiers declares war before attacking shipping of other nations, especially if they had an effective treaty before the war, check the Regency of Algiers article to understand more about the foreign policy of Algiers. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

for the answer to 1 ressel clearly suggests a favourable outcome for the dutch and the ' is not there in french, just because it came with difficulties doesnt mean he doesnt mean its a defeat for the algerians here are some more sentences that clearly support his own claim you keep talking about the loss od medditernean shipping (which i put in the article) you also ignore that the dutch were actually ahead of the british right after the war it was just later the share was lost ressel clearly suggest a victory for the dutch thats why he puts the dutch defeated the algerians however you twist his entire article and try to debunk ressel with his own article somehow? the real outcome is a victory for the dutch specifically said by the authors, and explained by them too let me cite him where he supports his own claim:

'We can therefore conclude that peace was achieved more by military might than by diplomacy." this CLEARLY supports the sentence "the dutch defeated the Algerians", he goes further into explaining: "and with the evident improvement of the Dutch means of warfare, the Algerians decided to settle with the Dutch. The French consul hints that the Dutch blockade of the Strait of Gibraltar had also been very harmful to the Algerians." This without a doubt suggest the Dutch made the algerians accept peace by defeating them

for the answer to 2 this is already in this article itself: "the Dutch negotiated an alliance with Britain and France. According to the agreement, Britain would assist if peace wasn't achieved within a year, and both France and Britain", and "his, together with the eventuality of Britain, and France joining the war" and "France and Britain would close their ports to Algerian ships"

for the answer to 3 every single source supports it the literal title of ressels articele :"The Dutch-Algerian War and the Rise of British Shipping to Southern Europe (1715-1726)", and he quite litterly says :"In December 1715 Algiers declared war on the Republic"

Everything about the article is fine GlobalReference221 (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)