Talk:Regency of Algiers

Possible issues to clean up, from the Toolforge link analyzer tool.

• 0 links that could be dead;
• 3 links that might be down:
  • Articles N° 5
  • Correspondance des deys d'Alger avec la cour de France 1579 — 1833
  • Traités de la France Avec les pays De l'Afrique du Nord Algérie, Tunisie, Tripolitaine, Maroc

Other issues at the link (none serious). Note: the tool has a bug, and never completes after it reaches 136 of 137 urls, but the report is dynamic, and you can see the results as it runs. The bug is reported here. Mathglot (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Here's a link to the first source.

Here are the archived versions of the second () and third () sources. M.Bitton (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@R_Prazeres - about reverting this edit : . i think there might just be a small mix-up about it. i absolutely agree the "morocco in 1700s" map is well-referenced, but like it says in the title it's about morocco, so it feels out of place. my whole goal was just to swap that one out for something more relevant to this article, which is why i put in the "regency of algiers in the 1820s" map.

also (think this one is less controversial) added the mapping company info since it seemed pretty significant being drawn by the french military just a year before the french invasion.

i get that the morocco map is aesthetically nice, and i actually do a bit of map design myself. as a compromise, i'd be more than happy to rework the algeria map to make it look just as "pretty". hope we can figure out a way that works for everyone. Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 09:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting "morocco in 1700s" or "about morocco" from. The map is neither labelled nor titled anything like that, it clearly indicates a representation of the overall territories of the three Maghrebi states (and partly a fourth) during this general period, which is exactly what we'd want for a lead image introducing the topic. It is both readability and the combined policies of WP:OR+WP:RS that justify it. You are proposing replacing a map that comes directly from modern historians who created a specalized atlas for the purpose (which is the ideal source per WP:RS) with a primary source whose reliability is not for us to evaluate, per WP:OR. On top of that, we already have a historical map from that same period displayed right below it anyways. If you want to propose swapping that map for another one, then please explain here why and refer to Wikipedia's content policies and/or to reliable sources, since the current maps were selected during the process of a long and thorough GA review of the article and I can see no reason why one would be better than the other.

As for expanding the caption on that second map, I don't see a problem in principle, but for the sake of keeping captions concise, I would support placing additional information in a footnote at the end of the caption rather than inline. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks @R Prazeres - I'm getting it from this file that says "alwit empire 18th century", map seems to be designed for that single purpose.

i looked into the RS document/map titled: "islamic reforms 1690s to 1900s" which appears to represents a broad set of reformist movements over almost 300 years rather than political entities at a specific period (they tend to overlap, but that would be a huge oversimplification).

the atlas is excellent as a broad thematic overview, but compressing the eras of ottoman influence, iddrissid periods, and late french colonialism into one single image risks losing the nuanced political and territorial shifts that occurred during those centuries, a map that shows extent at specific moment in the history of the regency would more accurately convey the historical reality than one that tries to tell a 300+ year story at a glance (where so many states rose and fell, and borders shifted often).

I'll add the footnote. but still think that the main map is not representative of the regency, happy for it to be in a different section, but think the main infobox map should be more focused/anchored in time (pre-colonial 1800s rather than 300 years) and scope (regency rather than morocco), which the suggested map covers. Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 06:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I think my answer above already covers this. The map you proposed also contains a glaring discrepancy with every other source on the matter, showing the Moroccan/Algerian border far to the west of where we would expect it to be, past the Tafilalt, so it is more likely to be inaccurate than to convey hisorical reality (and claiming otherwise would be WP:OR) and more likely to be confusing to readers. Since there is nothing notable about this map as a historical document compared to others either (unless you have secondary sources saying it is), I don't see any need to include it at all, unless other editors find reason to include it somewhere below with appropriate context. It most certainly does not belong in the infobox, for all the reasons mentioned so far. R Prazeres (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

did some more digging, think there are two separate things here, the northern part, and the sahara part

1- northern border (moulouya river): this map shows border in 1692.

• the moulouya river was the de facto border for centuries with the different moroccan dynasties.
• it was formally set by the treaty of oujda (1692).
• this boundary remained stable until the colonial period, where it was later challenged by the french and pushed back to the tafna river after the treaty of tafna 1837, then treaty of tangiers 1844.

on this front my map is more accurate, and the one currently there shows a border that is too far east to where it has been for most of the regency period (aprx. 400y)

2- southern border (gourara/touat/tafilalt):

• the regency projected its power deep into the sahara, with figuig controlled by 1584.
• the gourara region (touat, béchar, beni abbès) sought algiers protection from tafilalt, confirming the regency's influence extended to this major oasis zone.
• the effective limit of both states control seems to be the touat/tafilalt axis, beyond which was called bled siba (lands beyond reach for both states)

both maps fail to show this, agree that the one i shared shows tafilalt as part of the regency. also doesn't show the influence the regency had in figuig for example, and it insinuates that bled siba is somehow an extension of marakesh, when in fact it was designated as beyond control zone by both algiers and marakesh [mcdougall's book]

in summary, besides the fact that current map is (1) focused on morocco, (2) trying to cover 300+ years in a single snap, it also is (3) inaccurate both in showing the actual northern border during that period according to all the treaties mentioned and a large number of references that can be checked online (moulouya river), and (4) is insinuating that the beyond control zone was under the control of marakesh

using the mcdougall as a reference here, but there are few others that i've been consulting while writing this that confirm those points. let me your thoughts please, and we can choose a different map that accurately shows both the northern and southern extensions of the regency accordingly (we established current and suggested maps don't). Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 12:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Both maps currently used in the infobox are appropriate. The first is based on a secondary source that specializes in mapping historical Muslim states; it aligns well with the content of the article. The second, which is based on a primary source, is also suitable, as it illustrates the borders of the regency prior to the French invasion. Although the frontier with Morocco changed over time, these back and forth redeployments were not drastic and were mostly tied to both states' cautious attitude towards eachother; which supports the inclusion of the first map in the infobox. The body of the article, particularly the History section, already explains these early 19th-century border variations.

In discussions of early modern states, precise borders are often less significant than the general location and extent of the political entity, and the maps used successfully convey this. The secondary source provides scholarly interpretation; the primary source adds contemporaneous perspective that is closest to the secondary source. Together they give readers a well-rounded understanding. Overall, the GA article handles the issue well. ~2025-34800-61 (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks for presenting your opinion, but we're trying to find resources to reference. if you can provide any that would be very helpful. Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 14:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion at that the Kouloughlis article that could do with some input. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is the definition of an Ottoman province:

"An Ottoman province was an administrative territory formally under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire, governed in the sultan’s name by an appointed official such as a pasha, beylerbey, or later a wali. The exact term depended on the period: eyalet for the main Ottoman province from the 16th to the 19th centuries, vilayet after the 1864 reforms, and sanjak for a smaller district within a province."

For Algiers, this may apply to the early Ottoman period, especially the 16th century. But from the 17th century onward, presenting Algiers simply as an "Ottoman province" is not accurate and ignores the gradual change in its real political status.

Adding "semi-autonomous" does not solve the problem either. "Semi-autonomous" means a territory has partial self-government while still remaining under a higher authority. In the case of Algiers, this term can still be misleading if it suggests that the Regency was an ordinary Ottoman administrative province with limited local autonomy.

My reverted reformulation is therefore more accurate, because it presents the effective status of the Regency of Algiers instead of reducing it to the simplistic label of "Ottoman province". Barbary-corsair (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

To add to my initial point, I believe the current formulation is too reductive and, more importantly, it does not really fit with the rest of the article.

If the goal is to write a lead that actually reflects what is developed in the article, then the current simplistic wording is not appropriate. The article itself describes a more complex and evolving status for Algiers, so reducing it in the lead to a basic "semi-independent Ottoman province" label does not match the content. Barbary-corsair (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The lead is clear as is and has been reviewed by many people many times already. It was officially a province and had the formal trappings of one, while the rest of the wording and the article explains what that meant in practice and how it changed. So the content is doing its job. And crucially: Wikipedia is intended to reflect what reliable sources say (e.g. from a casual search: , , , ), not personal interpretation or arguments, which unfortunately is all you've provided so far. R Prazeres (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s called a regency because it was both a state and a province. A province because it’s integrated in the Ottoman administrative system. A state because the province is highly autonomous. The rulers of the regency identified themselves as both governors (Wali) and heads of state (Doulateli). These two attributes are not contradictory within the realm of historical Islamic empires. The article explains just that. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane@R Prazeres

Thank you for your well-developed answer, which I really appreciate.

The formulation “Algiers was a semi-independent Ottoman province from 1516 to 1830” is too simplistic, because it fixes the definition of the Regency in one static label and leaves no room for its gradual and actual change of status.

I initially gave the definition of an Ottoman province in order to highlight one key administrative feature: the ruler was normally appointed by the Ottoman sultan. That is precisely why the label becomes problematic for Algiers after its political evolution, since this was no longer the actual reality of its government from the 17th century onward.

My issue is not with mentioning the formal Ottoman link, but with presenting the de jure status while disregarding the de facto reality. The current wording gives the impression of a continuous Ottoman provincial status from 1516 to 1830, without properly reflecting the evolution of Algiers’ autonomy, especially from the 17th century onward.

As for sources, @R Prazeres, I can provide them, including primary sources where relevant. But I remain unsatisfied with the current formulation, which I find too reductive and not reflective enough of the article’s own content. Barbary-corsair (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Per Prazeres. The regency of Algiers was just that; A semi independent province and a nominal vassal state. It’s well sourced and covers the entire timeline. I’m done here. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This does really advance the discussion. The fact that the text is sourced does not, by itself, explain or justify the simplistic inaccurate phrasing.

Sorry, but dismissing the concern in this way does not address the substance of the objection. Barbary-corsair (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)