Talk:Barbary pirates

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)

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)

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)