DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Hasan Agha

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

[edit]

@Italopiombino: which part of that source says that he he was kidnapped at the age of ten by Barbarossa's men?

the book which cites the manuscript is from the 19th century, but the manuscript where is the source for this claim? M.Bitton (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page 99. I had already reported that explicitly in my first edit of the page. Italopiombino (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be more precise, the passage cited in page 99 of Édouard Cat 's book is contained in the pages 104-107 of manuscript V, 248. See page 93, where the account of the geography and history of Algeria begins. Italopiombino (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the claim, as I already have stated, is page 81, where the documents are said to have been collected by Juan Perez (Paez) De Castro, who worked for Charles V and Phili II of Spain. Italopiombino (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the very explicit passage: "... des événements de 1550 à 1559, époque ou vraisemblablement il fut écrit", page 81. Italopiombino (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but it doesn't really matter since that old source has now been replaced with two scholarly ones. M.Bitton (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It really does matter because you're acting arbitrarily.
Édouard Cat was a scholar: he became a doctor of letters in Paris in 1891, he held a post as professor of history and geography at the École supérieure des Lettres d'Alger (which later became the faculty of literature).
The Doctor of Letters was a postgraduate degree awarded by universities in France. It was the highest doctorate in existence between 1808 and 1984 in the disciplines of languages, literature, and the humanities.
His authority and reliability has never been contested, esteemed contemporary scholars like Daniel Nordman cited his work and praised him, see me my comment posted at 8:54 AM.
Not to mention that even the scholars you cited cite older sources, obviously, that's how history works: a scholar isn't just suddenly englightened by visions of what happened 3 or 5 centuries before his time. A scholar looks for and cites works that are as close as possible to the events he's studying. That's exactly what the scholar Édouard Cat did by citing Manuscript V, 248 in his bibliographic report to the Ministry of Education. Italopiombino (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered all of M.Bitton's perplexities thoroughly, who's demonstrated not to have read my source before hastily deleting what I wrote.
First of all, the term ancient cannot be applied here. The term ancient refers to antiquity, not to the 16th century, when the account was written, nor the 19th, when Édouard Cat cited it. But aside from that grievious error committed by M.Bitton, the fact that account is closer to the events narrated in it can only be an argument to its reliability, not to its lack thereof.
Second, he calls an official bibliographical report to the ministry of public instruction of France "unreliable" for no reason, only because his ego was hurt in me calling him out on deleting a valuable contribution without even reading it fist, as he's demonstrated, see the talk page and his incorrect comments upon first deleting my contribution.
Finally, my source actually cites a manuscript and its location, his source does not, but only gives a vague account, demonstrating that he's chosen it to replace mine, only out of stubborness. Not to mention that the source provided by him is in no way contradictory to the account cited by Édouard Cat.
The account given in the 16th century source cites specific names and sources of the names involved. Surnames like Farres, Pelurzo or Iba, are clearly Spanish corruptions of Sardinian surnames that still exist today: Farre/Farris, Pilurzu, Ibba. The change from Iba to Ibba for example can be found easily in several Sardinian documents produced during during the Spanish period.
So, all the details are very believable, plus, the reliability of the cited documents has never been contested. He's the first to do so, without even having read them. Italopiombino (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An edited version of my comment posted at 8:20am.
I have answered all of M.Bitton's perplexities thoroughly, who's demonstrated not to have read my source before hastily deleting what I wrote.
First of all, the term ancient cannot be applied here. The term ancient refers to antiquity, not to the 16th century, when the account was written, nor the 19th, when Édouard Cat cited it. But aside from that grievous error committed by M.Bitton, the fact that account is closer to the events narrated in it can only be an argument to its reliability, not to its lack thereof.
Second, he calls an official bibliographical report to the ministry of public instruction of France "unreliable" for no reason, only because his ego was hurt in me calling him out on deleting a valuable contribution without even reading it fist, as he's demonstrated, see the talk page and his incorrect comments upon first deleting my contribution.
Finally, my source actually cites a manuscript and its location, his source does not, but only gives a vague account, demonstrating that he's chosen it to replace mine only out of stubborness. Not to mention that the source provided by him is in no way contradictory to the account cited by Édouard Cat.
The account given in the 16th century source cites the specific names of the people involved in the events and specific locations. Surnames like Farres, Pelurzo or Iba, are clearly Spanish corruptions of Sardinian surnames that still exist today: Farre/Farris, Pilurzu, Ibba. The change from Iba to Ibba for example can be found easily in several Sardinian documents produced during during the Spanish period.
So, all the details are very believable, plus, the reliability of the cited documents has never been contested. He's the first to do so, without even having read them. Italopiombino (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another proof of the reliability of the source I've mentioned: the French scholar Daniel Nordman, who's worked as directeur de recherche in the Centre national de la recherche scientifique, cited Édouard Cat's publication in his work " Tempête sur Alger: L'expédition de Charles-Quint en 1541", and called him "bon connaisseur des sources espagnoles et spécialiste de la politique africaine de Charles Quint", see page 137. Italopiombino (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Édouard Cat's publication apart from being an old source (that has been superseded), that publication doesn't even comment on the much older source that it's citing verbatim.
Since you refuse to read the guidelines that I linked to, any attempt at teaching you the basic would obviously be a waste of my time. I'll await input from other editors. M.Bitton (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" apart from being an old source (that has been superseded)"
No, it hasn't being superseded. Nothing that newer sources say contradict it. In fact I've already shown that it's been cited by an esteemed contemporary scholar, Daniel Nordman, and I can add another one to the list: Faith S. Harden, another contemporary scholar, cited Cat's work in her recent book 'Arms and Letters Military Life Writing in Early Modern Spain'.
"that publication doesn't even comment on the much older source that it's citing verbatim."
It does comment upon it, try reading it, page 81 again. An estimate of the years when the documents were collected is given, and the documents are said to be written by Juan Perez (Paez) De Castro.
"Since you refuse to read the guidelines that I linked to,"
You seem to be unable to understand the guidelines you have provided. Because they explicitly say that old sources lack reliability if they're superseded by newer ones, which clearly isn't the case, as no newer sources contradict, either directly, or indirectly by citing documents which contradict the aforementioned account. Italopiombino (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • as no newer sources contradict it
Italopiombino (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read this: Wikipedia:Secondary sources. And please avoid the tendentious attitude in a debate. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know what a secondary source is, and Édouard Cat's Mission bibliographique en Espagne: rapport à Monsieur le ministre de l'Instruction publique falls into that category. So your criticism is not valid. I will edit the page again as you have not been able to provide a solid reason for Édouard Cat's work not being valid as a secondary source for Hasan Agha's life.
It's a secondary source written by a scholar, the validity of which has never been questioned by other scholars, and I've found said source quoted by several more recent scholars, even in relatively recent works about 16th century North Africa.
A tendentious attitude is that held by someone who deletes a source without reading it first, as M.Bison has proven, and without acknowledging his mistake. Italopiombino (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing you have shown if your unwillingness to read and understand the guidelines. Reprinting a primary source doesn't change the fact that it's primary (you know this since you mentioned the fact that the source cited is from the 16th century). The 19th century source is a) old and b) it doesn't comment on the primary source. Who wrote the 19th century is irrelevant. Lastly, since the subject is covered in modern scholarly sources, there is no reason whatsoever to use primary sources. I will therefore restore the modern secondary sources that you deleted without a valid reason. M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Édouard Cat's Mission bibliographique en Espagne: rapport à Monsieur le ministre de l'Instruction publique , the source I cited, can in no way be considered a primary source. The text reported from the manuscript cannot be considered a primary source either, since it's not a firsthand account written by Hasan Agha, nor by Alcayde Ali, and it's not even a report directly written by someone who spoke to them, since it's not written by Nicola Iba the Sardinian, the priest who dealth with Alcayde, but by Juan Perez or Paez De Castro, who never spoke with the renegades, but wrote an account of Alcayde Ali's and Hasan Agha's life, after receiving information, possibly from Nicola Iba or another ambassador. The account itself having been written many decades after their kidnapping.
So your criticism is again not valid, neither "Édouard Cat's work describing and reporting the content of the manuscript, nor the text pertaining to Hasan's life contained in said manuscript, can be classified as a primary source.
In addition to that, the scholarly source you cited, are in no way contradictory to the more detailed scholarly secondary source I cited.
I will therefore edit the page again, as you have shown not to have read the content of the source I cited, since you again have only managed to display your bad faith and unwillingness to accept the fact that you were blatantly wrong. Italopiombino (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming for the sake of the argument that the manuscript itself could considered a primary source - which is debatable because it deals with events removed by several decades from its composition, and not witnessed directly, nor was it written by someone who spoke with a witness - the source I actually cited is Édouard Cat's work, not the manuscript itself. The manuscript is in turn cited in Édouard Cat's report, see the definition given in the Wikipedia page about primary sources:
"Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources."
Therefore, if I had only cited the content of the manuscript, after having consulted it myself, without citing Édouard Cat's work, then, arguably, the source I cited could be considered primary, but since I cited Édouard Cat's publication, and not the manuscript directly, the source I cited is in fact secondary, not primary, and therefore a secondary source according to Wikipedia's standards.
Édouard Cat gave a summary and a brief comment upont the dating and authorship of the text in page 81, making his work, the one I actually cited in the footnote, a secondary, not primary source. I did mention the manuscript, for the sake of accuracy, but not as the source cited directly in the footnote.
Aside from that, the idea that a secondary source is necessarily better than a primary one is not held by Wikipedia, the page "Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources" states:
<<Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary".>>
<<"Primary" does not mean "bad">>
<<"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.
Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.>>
Let's now go back to M.Bitton's first criticism, since he only came up with the secondary vs primary sources argument after having been proven wrong, without acknowledging his first make: his cricism was about the dating of the source I cited. M.Bitton, after hastily deleting what I wrote, justified his action by stating: "That's not what the source says + it's from the 19th century (not 16th)".
M.Bitton was clearly talking about the dating of the manuscript, which is the only source I assigned a date to, not about the source I actually cited in the footnote, which I never assigned to the 16th century. So, either M.Bitton lacks basic reading comprehension skills, and therefore made this blunder out of poor reading skills, or, as I proposed earlier, didn't actually read the source I mentioned, and thought the manuscript was dated to the 19th century, which, as I've already amply demonstrated, is wrong, since the manuscript's date is assigned to the 16th century in page 81.
So, regardless of the nature of M.Bitton's blunder, it is clear that he mistakenly deleted my first contribution, without however acknowledging his undeniable error.
This should be carefully taken note of by all the editors and moderators interested in this discussion: not acknowledging a mistake, despite being amply proven wrong several times, is indeed a sign of bad faith. So, one should consider whether M.Bitton is honestly trying to supervise the quality of this Wikipedia article, or if, by deleting my contributions repeatedly and trying to have me silenced, he's actually doing so out of a personal grudge, evidently displayed by his lack of acknowledgement of his first blunder, which is what after all sparked this whole endless discussion. Italopiombino (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text reported from the manuscript cannot be considered a primary source either it is, but if it's not, then it has to be a very old secondary one (written by a priest), and therefore, unreliable (as far as history is concerned).
the scholarly source you cited, are in no way contradictory to the more detailed scholarly secondary source I cited they studied the old and primary sources and disregarded the garbage. That's what modern scholarly sources tend to do.
The manuscript is in turn cited it's printed verbatim (in its original language). The author didn't comment or build on the part that you used. In fact, they didn't say anything about it.
The rest of your comment (full of aspersions that serve no purpose) will be ignored for now. M.Bitton (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"but if it's not, then it has to be a very old secondary one (written by a priest), and therefore, unreliable (as far as history is concerned)."
The fact that Juan Paez (or Perez) de Castro was a priest is irrelevant to the accuracy of the document. Most of the intellectuals were priests in the 16th century. His account isn't an attack on another religion or sect. It's a simple account of the early life of the two aforementioned renegades, which isn't contradictory to other accounts at all.
" they studied the old and primary sources and disregarded the garbage. That's what modern scholarly sources tend to do."
There's no indication whatsoever that the authors of the sources you cited studied manuscrip V 248 and discarded it or part of its content as "garbage". That's a gratuitous comment you've just made based on nothing. Simply a baseless conjecture that serves your dishonest purpose of winning this edit war you've started.
"The rest of your comment (full of aspersions that serve no purpose) will be ignored for now."
They serve a purpose indeed, I've brought up the fact that Wikipedia policy doesn't dictate that secondary sources must necessarily be preferred to primary ones, it is indeed an important point that you are willfully ignoring because it goes against your poor arguments against my edit. Italopiombino (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since no valid arguments have been made against the inclusion of De Castro's account reported by Édouard Cat, and my last reply has been completely ignored, I'll make another more detailed comment in defense of the reliability of the source I provided:
There is no reason whatsoever for conjecturing that De Castro would have been interested in fabricating an account with the details of Alcaide Alì's and Hasan Agha's kidnapping. There's nothing that can be considered ideologically motivated in locating their origins in Siniscola or Posada rather than in any other Sardinian village.
De Castro was a humanist trained in Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, he obtained mastery of said langages by attending the prestigious universities of Alcalá and Salamanca, where he also studied history, law and philosophy. He was appointed Latin chronicler and chaplain to Charles V (and later Philip II) of Spain, he held a correspondence with other esteemed intellectuals and historians at the time such as Jerónimo Zurita. Your attempt at dismissing him as some fanatical priest is really inappropriate. No historian, modern or old, has expressed such a view about him. De Castro was one of the most respected humanists and intellectuals of his time, see for instance:
Arantxa Domingo Malvadi, 2004, Juan Páez de Castro y los libros.
The care taken by De Castro in selecting and evaluating sources can be also evinced by the fact that when writing his Chronicle he asked Philip for documents of ‘weight and authority’, unwilling to rely on ‘letters of soldiers or what people say in the squares'. See Barry Taylor's review about another work written by Arantxa Domingo Malvadi regarding De Castro:
Barry Taylor, 2012, Bibliofilia humanista en tiempos de Felipe II: la biblioteca de Juan Páez de Castro (review).
De Castro's good reputation is also mentioned by other modern scholars such as Luciano Floridi: "Paez de Castro has been considered by many as one of the greatest Spanish humanists who ever lived". See:
Luciano Floridi, 1995, The Diffusion of Sextus Empiricus Works in the Renaissance.
Your unfounded suspicions could well apply to any primary source of the same type. Most modern historians, and many Wikipedia articles, cite primary sources from centuries before their time.
A fitting example could be Nicetas Choniates' "Annals", also known as "Historia" or "Chronikè diegesis", a source that I already knew but that I encountered again today while reading a Wikipedia article, the source is cited numerous times in the article about the battle of Demetritzes, it's a translation, not a secondary source: "Choniates, N.: Magoulias, Harry J., ed. (1984). O City of Byzantium. Annals of Niketas Choniates. Detroit: Wayne State University." The work is only introduced by a small preface. Nothing is said about the battle of Demetritzes by Harry J. Magoulias except an extremely brief footnote that explains where the place is. The citations are direct quotes by Choniates.
If we were to use your method of evaluating sources we'd be left with almost no records of human history. Leaving aside that even when there is reasonable doubt that an account might've been exaggerated or invented, like Herodotus' account of the Persian army in Greece, the account isn't outright rejected, as you can see in the Wikipedia articles about the battles that took place during Persian wars, but cited with caution, along with modern historians' criticisms and observations.
Eusebius of Caesarea's works are cited directly in the Wikipedia page about emperor Constantine, despite the presence in the same page of several secondary sources that cast doubt on the reliability of many of his accounts.
But that's clearly not the case of De Castro's account anyway, since exaggerated numbers, fantastical elements, and absurd details in general are not present at all in the text. On the contrary, several of the details given by De Castro's text align perfectly with what we know from other historical sources. I've already cited the surnames of the people involved, that are perectly reasonable for 16th century Sardinia. A striking example is the rare surname Pelurço, that of Alcaide Alì's mother, that surname's closest parallels that can be fond are: Pilurzu, Pilurtzu and Pilurzi, all found only in Sardinia, the surname Pilurzu is recorded as belonging to a man of Posada who had the courage to strike the baron of said place, see:
"Goffredo Casalis, 1840, Dizionario geografico, storico, statistico, commerciale degli stati di S.M. il re di Sardegna: Gabiano-Genova, vol. VII, 1840, page 99."
The surname in its variant "Pilurzi" is still mostly present in the area of Posada today.
Since you have made clear that you dislike primary sources, I think it's important to note that they way surnames were written often changed at the time, sometimes the same person's name was spelled in different ways in the same document.
Another accurate detail that aligns well with trusted historical sources is the mention of the small towns of Posada and Siniscola as the places of origin for the two Sardinian renegades. Siniscola and several nearby villages were raided by the Barbary sailors in 1514, many of the inhabitants were taken prisoner by the corsairs. Torpè, a small village immediately west of Posada, was also raided, and since Torpè is located more to the interior than Posada, it's reasonably to suppose that any inhabitant of Posada that wasn't inside its walls would've been in danger aswell. That's not really crucial, because while Alcayde Alì is said to be a native of Posada, a place almost attached to Torpè and near Siniscola, the text doesn't explicitly mention where he was taken. What's explicitly said in the document is that Siniscola, the place where Hasan was kidnapped, was attacked, which is corroborated by the other historical accounts I've mentioned.
So, if in 1514 Alcayde Alì and Hasan Agha were respectively 14 and 10, as said in the text, in 1541 during the Algiers expedition Hasan would've been around 37, a perfectly reasonable age for his rank at the time.
The devastating raid on Siniscola is mentioned by several sources, including:
Corridore, Francesco, 1900, Storia documentata della marina Sarda dal dominio spagnuolo al Savoino (1479-1720). (Published again 1993 by Forni Editore, a publishing house that often worked with university professors);
Livi, Carlo, 2002, Sardi in schiavitù nei secoli XII-XV;
Casula, Francesco Cesare, 2008, "Il pericolo franco-turco nel Regno di Sardegna in epoca moderna." Bruno Anatra-Maria Grazia Mele-Giovanni Murgia-Giovanni Serreli (a cura di), Contra Moros y Turcos.
Sure, secondary sources are useful if produced by qualified scholars, and possibly revisioned by other scholars. This would apply if the secondary sources you cited commented upon the passage I mentioned, but they unfortunately didn't. So it doesn't follow that the inclusion of your secondary sources should result in the omission of my, arguably, primary source.
The first secondary source you cited, which is the one I could easily have access to and which I've read in its enterity, only gives a very brief summary of Hasan's career, it's clearly not a biography, Hasan's not the main focus of the publication, so it's no wonder that the author didn't bother to go into detail about the exact town where Hasan was born. There is no reason to believe Tal Shuval avoided to do so because he believed that De Castro's document was "garbage", that's absolutely baseless speculation.
The source you included adds nothing to my account, it only corraborates it, since it only mentions its birth in Sardinia, a fact also present in my account. If your source mentioned his birth in another palce, for example in Cabras, another Sardinian town ransacked by the Barbary corsairs, rather than in Siniscola, then there would be good reasons to at least speculate that the author might've at least known my source and discarded it for whatever reason. Even in this hypothetical case, the scholar should at least provide an argument, such as the discovery of another work that contradicts De Castro's account, which is clearly not the case. The idea that any of the scholars you cited rejected De Castro's account is just the product of your overactive imagination, since the manuscript is not even mentioned, let alone the part I cited.
So, to sum up my arguments in defense of including the citation I've provided in the article:
1)There are no reasonable grounds to state that De Castro's account might have been invented or substantially exaggerated. The account only gives a few more details compared to other accounts that are more vague about the exact towns where the two Sardinian renegades were born. The account itself appears neutral and not more or less hostile to the renegades than other accounts, and it's neither contradictory nor does it contain fantasical elements, certainly not in the part that I cited.
2)The secondary sources you cited do not contradict De Castro's account in any way, shape, or form, so the latter shouldn't be omitted as a source.
3)There is no inherit reason why a secondary source should be always preferable to a primary one, which is what you argued in order to have De Castro's account removed.
4)There are many details in De Castro's text that align perfectly well with what is known from other historical sources about the inhabitants of the places mentioned, and what occurred to them at the time. It's unreasonable to conjecture that De Castro would've taken the care to gather such specific data about that particular area of Sardinia just to make up a story in order to make his account slightly more detailed than the others about the two renegades' kidnapping. A further reason to consider De Castro's account reliable. Italopiombino (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found further evidence that significantly supports the case for the reliability of De Castro's account:
The existence of Nicolò Iba, the friar mentioned in De Castro's text as the envoy who negotiated with Alcayde Alì, is mentioned by other trustworhty sources. One of them is a PhD thesis:
Poletti Roberto, 2016, "Il notariato ad Iglesias tra Medioevo ed età moderna." Doctoral thesis, Università degli Studi di Cagliari.
In this thesis it's mentioned that the Franciscan friar Nicolao (his name is also spelled Nicola in Poletti's thesis) Iba (or Ibba) negotiated with the "Moors" (Barbary pirates) to ransom Sardinian slaves who had been captured by them.
He's said to have been sent to bargain with the "Moors" at least three times, in 1551, in 1575 and finally in 1582. See pages 242-243 of Roberto Poletti's thesis.
The first of these dates, the year 1551, coincides with the period in which Nicolao Iba negotiated with the Barbary corsairs in Algiers according to Édouard Cat, see page 81 of the latter's work.
Note that Nicolao Ibba's surname is both spelled Iba and Ibba in Poletti's thesis.
Finally, the Franciscan friar Nicolaus Ibba is mentioned as the "sindicus" of the Sardinian town of Iglesias in a document reported by another source:
Carlo Baudi di Vesme, 1877, Historiae Patriae Monumenta, Codex diplomaticus Ecclesiensis, edita iussu Regis Caroli Alberti.
(page 890). Italopiombino (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]