Talk:Expedition to the Moulouya

link

Hi @S Marshall , Arudj Reis can be linked to Oruç Reis. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the ally was Sidi Ahmed ou el Kadhi (Q3483169), there is Kingdom of Kuku. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sidi_Ahmed_N'Ulqadi. fiveby(zero) 23:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, i think that's true. SimoooIX (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

We need to reverse that AfD's outcome. The nominator and the other person who !voted "delete" were not good faith Wikipedians and both have been site banned. I will arrange for this a little later on.—S Marshall T/C 08:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Move to Ahmed ou l-Qadi per Roberts or Ahmed ou el Kadhi per fr:Sidi Ahmed ou el Kadhi? Either way should drop Sidi. fiveby(zero) 15:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The former seems like an idiosyncratic transliteration to me, so I think I'd go with the latter?—S Marshall T/C 15:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

I have removed the term Ottoman from the infobox because it's factually incorrect: in 1517, Aroudj was the king of Algiers, while el-Kadi was the leader of Kuku. M.Bitton (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "Ottoman victory" is incorrect . But it's alright. Your edits seem fine to me. SimoooIX (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Ottoman victory is factually incorrect. Besides, had this event taken place during the Ottoman period, then Algerian would be the correct term to use (because that's how the Ottomans who lived there identified as). M.Bitton (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Our article on Ottoman Algeria says that Algeria was an Ottoman vassal state from 1516. Our article on Oruç Reis says he was an Ottoman. Are these articles wrong?—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@S Marshall: It's not that simple: Aroudj was an Ottoman privateer at that time, but in this battle, he acted as the king of Algiers. Like I said previously, had this event taken place during the Ottoman period, then Algerian would be the correct term to use (because that's how the Ottomans who lived there identified as). M.Bitton (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that Aroudj was acting as King of Algiers at the time. I think there might be confusion between nationality and ethnicity here?

As I understand it from reading Wikipedia articles, and I'm well aware of the limitations of these, Aroudj himself seems to have been Ottoman by nationality, but not fully Turkish by ethnicity. His troops seem to have been mostly North African by ethnicity rather than Turkish? Have I got that straight? Anyway, Aroudj armed and equipped them with Ottoman assistance, and he had sent valuable tribute to the Sultan in the previous year. I think Aroudj might have been in the course of setting up an Ottoman vassal state comprising people who were North African by ethnicity.

The trouble with infoboxes of course is that they want simple, pithy statements and don't cope well with this level of complexity.—S Marshall T/C 17:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You got most of it right, except the part about the Ottoman's assistance (that came later, after his death, when his brother Khayr-din asked for it). M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

But...both brothers Khizr and Arudj were Khayr-al-Din "Protector of Religion" from Selim? And we are in a period of transition from Hafsid support from Tunis to Ottoman support for the brothers? fiveby(zero) 17:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That's probably off-topic anyway, Roberts pp. 183-9 has some discussion of Algiers and Tlemcen, but i'm really struggling to find any sources to improve this article. fiveby(zero) 19:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Oops, i missed ...an undertaking which in turn soon prompted them to embark on the entirely novel business of subduing the hinterland through campaigns against the Hadjout tribe in the western Mitija, then the towns of Tenès, Miliana and Medea p. 186 citing OCLC 31738507. fiveby(zero) 20:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"because that's how the Ottomans who lived there identified as". Could you please provide an RS supporting your claim? And don't forget we're talking about 1517. SimoooIX (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read again what I wrote, take the time to digest it properly and then ask the question (in context). M.Bitton (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand that the term 'Algerian' may not be incorrect, particularly after 1671 when the regency gained some independence. However, considering that we're discussing a period as early as 1517 when Algiers became the capital for the first time, I believe that using the term 'Algerian' could be considered anachronistic. There is no evidence from that period that the term was used. SimoooIX (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrong again. Please read what I said about the king of Algiers.

For the rest, we can have a conversation later on about how the Maghrebis saw themselves (I have all the reliable sources needed to prove that the notion of Nation State didn't exist in any of those countries until the 20th century). Should you wish to go down that route, you can rest assured that there will be no double standard (all of them will be treated the same). M.Bitton (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand that he acted as the king of Algiers, but still using the term 'Algerian' may not be accurate unless there is evidence that the term (or its equivalents, Kingdom of Algiers for example) was actually used during that time period. Additionally, I believe that what matters is not how they identified themselves, but how they were perceived by others. (For example, Germans do not call themselves 'Germans'). Regarding your comment in parentheses, it's true that the notion of a nation-state doesn't apply to the countries of the Maghreb during that time period (or to the majority of the Muslim world, in fact). However, I don't believe that Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia should be treated the same, but that's a separate discussion. SimoooIX (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It's the Ottoman that you added that is factually incorrect. You can believe what you want about the rest (which isn't what this is about), I'll let the RS do the talk when the time comes. M.Bitton (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Those articles are not wrong. And that's why i thought that "Ottoman victory" was the best term. SimoooIX (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? M.Bitton (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It may be wrong or misleading to say privateer in Oruç_Reis and Ottoman Algeria#Establishment. Admittedly i've read little here, but what i have would suggest Arudj was acting in his own interest at the time. Should focus on good sources and good article content here before the infobox. Right now i would say victory by a corsair who "...purposed creating an independent principality... would be best for the reader, and saying "Ottoman victory" would require a source which actually discusses Ottoman involvement. fiveby(zero) 17:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the period discussed. He acted as a privateer in some instances and as a corsair in others, but in this one he was acting in the interest of his newly formed kingdom. M.Bitton (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)