Talk:Barbary corsairs

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)

On the word Corsair

More research is needed on the origin of the word "Corsair". My contention is that it must be derived from Byzantium, since it is a loan-word in Icelandic before 1230. EliasHalldor (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Biased understones

I'm not sure why the author here can't seem to avoid 'driving home' european superiority, when there are other ways to describe historical events more neutrally, as done in many articles on wikipedia, imo. For example, 5th paragraph: "Long after Europeans had abandoned oar-driven vessels in favor of sailing ships carrying tons of powerful cannon, many Barbary warships were galleys carrying a hundred or more fighting men armed with cutlasses and small arms" appears to emphasize european superiority, than elaborating on such differences, 'how' long before, or why they matter. or, it could be put more subtly, centered on facts, or longer, thus less personal bias in its place, if so.

Likewise the 6th paragraph uses 'finally, imparting sense of relief, i.e bias, regarding 'the threat': "being subdued by the French conquest of Algeria in 1830 and subsequent pacification by the French during the mid-to-late 19th century".

Relief for who? African leaders? Other muslim.leaders? Russians..

The text could be longer, so to avoid emphasizing author's personal biases, e.g,'relief' for targeted Europeans, when it's known that the pirates also raided non European coasts.

-imo 12.146.12.12 (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

*****

Hmm. I think that:

A.) It's also known—and well-sourced—that European nations bore the brunt of the piratical activity, by far—not so?

B.) Yes, "relief" is a poor word-choice, if we want an "encyclopedic" tone (yes); if it's still there, I'm fine with removing or changing it, personally. And...

C.) ...you might be reading some personal feelings into the ship thing: that's just a bare statement of fact, seems to me, and it's absolutely relevant to a large number of the people who will be looking this up (it's what I'm mainly interested in: the ships, the cool badass historical ships, man I wish I could buy me some real cool historical warships--)...

In fact, the bit you quoted could even be seen as little bit admiring of the pirates, who were evidently such excellent seamen & warriors that the difference in naval technology made no bones anyway. Too, note that the on-demand power of the sweeps—in all but the very highest of seas—enabled the corsairs to remain fast & maneuverable even during conditions wherein the pure sailing-ship would handle like a pig wallowing in the mud: i.e., again, this gave the corsairs an advantage in some situations! It's not a difference only of technology, but of emphasis.

I mean... we don't need to put a bare historical fact "subtly" just so people don't feel bad that some long-dead historical sailors, who are moderately-more-closely related to themselves than are some other long-dead historical sailors, happened to have smaller ships than the latter... right?!

Well, that's my $0.02, anyway. Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

*****

June 2024

@HistoricalJoesph.M: this content that you added doesn't exist on page 18, therefore, a valid explanation for why you added it is in order. M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I checked the source that you added previously, and likewise, it doesn't support the other content that you added.

Since I wasted my time checking the sources, only to find out that that you grossly misrepresented them, further edits of yours will simply be reverted until you provide a valid explanation for what you did. M.Bitton (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for your message. The sources I previously sent were confused with several of the wordings and pages as the online tool I used to explore the books was no apt with their downloads, apologies on my behalf. You'll find the latest revision I done is using a very credible online resource, with direct links to the quote, pages and a whole downloadable version on the book. It's a great read! Thanks again. HistoricalJoesph.M (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You failed to explain why you misrepresented the two sources (we're not just talking about a simple mistake, you literally attributed quotes to two different sources, here and here). Try again and give the correct pages that are supposed to support your claims (I have access to the two sources). Also, I strongly suggest you refrain from edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I specifically replied to you stating "The sources I previously sent were confused with several of the wordings and pages as the online tool I used to explore the books was no apt with their downloads, apologies on my behalf". That is me explaining exactly why the prior two sources were misrepresented with exact wordings and pages. As a result I supplied you with a very accurate third resource, through a trusted online website that displays the book of the historian exactly as it is and directs you exactly to the page where the quote is used. Also, I strongly suggest you assume good faith. The prior two resources were declined, which is fine. But the third being declined on the basis of two edits being declined prior is not to assume good faith or to accurately include the relevant third resource on this basis -

Historical writer Angus Konstam notes that "for almost 300 years North African and Turkish corsairs dominated the Western and Central Mediterranean from their havens along the coasts of modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya — the Berber or ‘Barbary’ Coast". Stating that "these skilled and ferocious seamen earned such a reputation that they attracted European renegades to join them, and raided as far north as the coasts of England, Ireland, and even Iceland." HistoricalJoesph.M (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @M.Bitton, as this message and questions I asked have yet to be responded to or resolved here. Please refer to my additional responses in my talk page here - talk:HistoricalJoesph.M. - regarding both the third resource I supplied and adherence to the Wiki rules. HistoricalJoesph.M (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't play games with me. I started this discussion to ask you a question that you keep evading. M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources I previously sent were confused with several of the wordings and pages as the online tool I used to explore the books was no apt with their downloads what does that even mean? What tool are you referring to?

Regarding the two quotes that you falsely attributed to different sources: if you read them somewhere, please say where and if you made them up, please say so. M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

References

POV Issues

Hi folks. I added the POV template because of several issues:

• The citations are entirely based on European and American sources, without a single citation of a non-Western history book (they exist, by the way...).
• The language used is entirely based on European contexts and narratives, without even informing the reader of the terms used by the so-called "Barbary pirates" themselves (i.e. naval mujahideen).
• There is nothing about the actual intentions, reasonings, or perspectives of these so-called "Barbary pirates." The article just sounds like a diatribe rather than an honest account of history.
• The European sources' narratives conflict dramatically with non-European sources, yet the latter are never cited.

We need to improve this article with a greater variety of sources and perspectives. Wikipedia is a place for NPOV: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, not for one-sided historical narratives. DivineReality (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at a citation from a non-Western history book right now. Did you add it?

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that English Wikipedia will use mostly English sources. Reading through the article, I'm not sure what you're seeing, either--unless you've changed it yourself already; compare the treatment here with the treatment of notable European pirates: if anything, this article is more sympathetic.

As far as I've read, non-European sources don't really conflict dramatically with European ones, re: the Barbary corsairs. I'm limited by my execrable Arabic, of course, but some works have been translated--including some very, uh... very pro-"Barbary-Freedom-Fighter" treatments; e.g. there's one--entitled something like Barbary Pirates: Myths, Lies, & Legends--that definitely swings the pendulum as far as it possible can...

...but even it doesn't try to say "it never happened" or nothin'.

Oh, there's always tit-for-tat-ing about who started what, who was retaliating & who was defending, who was honorable & who was treacherous--but there isn't much disagreement on the basic facts (many dead, many ransomed, many enslaved).

The only thing I can think of that you may be referring to is the concept that the Barbary states had that they were merely "doing unto others", citing e.g. Venetian aggression as justification for retaliation, and viewing themselves as authorized by the Ottoman state as privateers; whereas Western sources may claim that no, this was not privateering as Europe knew it, it was purely motivated by profit, etc.

Considering that we know for a fact there was immense profit involved (check out the incredible wealth of some of the more notable captures & commanders; boy, I almost can't blame 'em, nor the Euros who "turned Turk"... I might get pretty nasty for that kind of lucre, myself--), this is not exactly a totally crazy claim--but I'm not sure if that's really dramatically at odds with the article as it stands. Both perspectives can be true without much actual mutual exclusion going on.

But I am, of course, pleased to be educated if you've got dozens of respected North African & Middle Eastern scholars saying that actually the pirates didn't even pirate at all you guys.

(Actually, no, I'd be very displeased & feel dumb if that turned out to be the case--but I'll pretend to be happy to learn.)

Cheers, and apologies for the long wind!

Himaldrmann (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)