Talk:History of the Regency of Algiers

(Redirected from Draft talk:History of the Regency of Algiers)
Latest comment: 2 hours ago by Elinruby in topic Moroccan campaigns

Draft edit

@R Prazeres It's mostly copy past with small additions. I guess we now need a summary for the main article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Excellent, thanks. I suppose we should confirm that the others do indeed want to do this, but I imagine they will. R Prazeres (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unused refs edit

@Nourerrahmane: @R Prazeres: I've taken out all the unused refs and put them in a fr section for completeness and neatness until we are ready either to use or get rid of the whole fr sections on both article. May need one or two but there is a lot. scope_creepTalk 07:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unused refs, used in main article edit

Multitarget edit

Hey @Elinruby, it's here, there are actually two volumes of Seybold ref, can't figure out how to cite them seperately. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

that might be more of a Scope creep question since I have less experience that he does with MoS and templates. But I will look inot it if it's still there when I come back. Elinruby (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Come to think of it though didn't we have this problem with De Grammont or one of the other older French sources? Regardless, gotta go, will look into this when I come back if it's still here when I check on it. Elinruby (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nourerrahmane: I can fix that. But the ones in the history article that are above page 545 must be other volumes, so they are not Seybold. Seybold is only good for p. 258. If you can give me the volume numbers for that page, for the history article, then I can create the references and cite them. Page 258 is Seybold. I'll check what p.471 author is. The author name is the end of the article, but the volume number needs to be in there, so it can be found. scope_creepTalk 20:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
refs: 180, 230 and 235 are Vol 2 Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
(still not really back) I am assuming this is getting fixed unless somebody pings me about it Elinruby (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Elinruby: I'm doing it now. scope_creepTalk 21:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Nourerrahmane: Is ref 180 correct p.854 vol 2. Is on the China-Cift page and can't verify. Doing the other two. scope_creepTalk 21:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Changed citation to Holt in 180. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Coolio. So I can tick that as finished. scope_creepTalk 22:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

old ref edit

war with Spain section edit

Mohamed ben Othman is a redlink and I know he has an article, need to fix redlink Elinruby (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Y he had a previous mention and Nour unlinked the second one that was spelled differently. Solved the redlink, maybe should standardize name Elinruby (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)  Y I did standardize the name also Elinruby (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

New masters of Algiers edit

sort of a disconnect here; The Spanish landed, so how does the north wind come into this? I haven't looked at the main article yet, and am sure that this has to do with the ships they were retreating to. But someone who hasn't spent months on this article might wonder, and just a few words would probably be enough to resolve this. I will come back to it, but noting here as a reminder to self, and if it gets fixed before I get to it then great. Elinruby (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hopefully it's clearer after my last update. Also replaced the unsourced phrase you removed with more context. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I saw the Leo Africanus quote. That is probably good. I have to be on another device to verify the reference but I am going to find out that the quote is in the source word for word, right? Elinruby (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
 Y Also just saw the part about ships getting washed onto the coast, and that takes care of the above concern. Elinruby (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know I keep asking this edit

Morocco opposed the Ottomans with determination, and saw Algiers as a danger to its independence. It also had ancient ambitions in western Algeria and especially in Tlemcen.[1]

but does Boaziz cover both those sentences? If so could we please put a cite at the end of the first one.? Please. It strikes me as very crystal ball and synthy, as in we should not say this but we can indeed quote Boaziz saying this if he does.

I wrote the quote.<--Nour is this you? If so, okay, is there a source that says pretty much this? Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alternately, how much do we lose if we just take it out? I personally think it could well be true and should be easy to source, but it *is* synth unless it's sourced.Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
 Y I believe this now has the same cite at the end of both sentences, thank you for that. Elinruby (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Boaziz 2007, p. 51.

Actually, no. The first sentence was still uncited. Now it does have the same cite at the end of both sentences. Elinruby (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Need guidance on tai'fa edit

Should the mention in the lede link to taifa? I hadn't noticed that article until now Elinruby (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

just noting that when it came up deep in the administration section I did link it as an explanation of the type of organization. I just think tai'fa is not exactly the same thing as in the taifa article. Or is it? Translator hesitated here, in any event. Elinruby (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the "Ali Bitchin Rais" section the term is linked to Corsairs of Algiers where the term is defined. I would link in lede and remove in the Bitchin section. @Nourerrahmane: Any thoughts?s scope_creepTalk 20:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The fundamental question here is whether taifa, whose article does not mention Algiers, is the same thing as tai'fa. If it is, then I agree with Scope creep. If it us not then following the usual rules with it may be misleading.Elinruby (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not the same at all, these taifas are independent kingdoms of medieval islamic Spain, while the tai'fa is the community of corsair captains of Algiers. I agree with you on this scope. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC
Aha kingdoms not just governments. My question was whether this was related enough and it sounds like you are saying no, not at all, so: 1) not linking in the lede 2) the link on the body should go away also. I will make a point of finding that and posting here when done Elinruby (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Still need to do a search specifically for this, but I *did* notice that if you wikilink "tai'fa" it goes to taifa. So there is a hole in the road there. Meanwhile, I will do the search before I close this. Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
 YI did do a search, taifa is not present in the article now, and tai'fa is linked appropriately Elinruby (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

tone issue edit

infested is usually used for vermin, insects, bacteria... I assume it came from one of the sources? Can we nail down which one, or would you prefer that I change it to another word such as "covered"? Elinruby (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @Elinruby i don't have internet connexion right now, i'll be available tonight (GMT +1). Nourerrahmane (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I am not particularly fussed about it but we should talk about whether this is really what you meant, or we are channelling European historians again or what. Needs to be clarified and maybe attributed. Probably attributed. Elinruby (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Braudel 1995 vol 2 is quite a heavy use of the word infested so the source is correct. According to the OED, [1] infested means "to trouble a country or place with hostile attacks, to visit persistenly with large numbers with the purposes of destruction". It may be obselete though. The Cambridge dictionary states its a insect based gig. I think Braudel is using the original definition, i.e. old definition from 1536. scope_creepTalk 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It may need changed? scope_creepTalk 20:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
it may sound biased at first blush. If the source is using it and Nour's point is that the source is biased, which is a discussion that we have had a few times, I think it should be a quote. To a North American ear it sounds really derogatory and I question whether it should be in Wikivoice. Open to discussion on all of the above. Elinruby (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nour, it carries about the same tone as "infecte" in French, ie not just infected but disgusting, rotting and probably contagious. If you just want to say there were a lot of pirates in Mediterranean waters, I will find another word. If you are arguing in your head with French historians, I sympathize but your readers will mostly not have the background to realize that, and it should be attributed and probably in quotes.Elinruby sig added by scope_creepTalk 09:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
That would certainly fix without removing it, but it does mean massive quantities of something, in this instance, a huge fleet. Quote it, if everybody agrees. scope_creepTalk 09:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Chaouch(?) edit

This turns up in the discussion of the Pact. Wiktionary has several definitions, none of which seem to apply. Can we talk about what you mean by this, since "Ottoman high official", "Moroccan service worker", and "grape varietal" seem to not be what you mean. Not saying don't use it, just that maybe we need to fix wiktionary. Also, by the rules of either French or English, the plural would be "chaouches". I was also confused by "gunner" this is usually a job not a branch of the military. Is this talking about what the French call "tirailleurs"?

Speaking of not saying don't use it, where was it that you were talking about slaves being worth less than a radish (or was it an onion)? In the part about prices crashing in the slave market? It's actually an interesting insight, like the corsair song, would kind of like to see that go back in, preferably cited. I just got stuck on clarifying the meaning of it.

You remembered that ? Lol i will add it !

For Chaouche or Chaoux in French: here is a depiction and a description

The one in the middle

Description of the Chaoux, the Ottoman Algerian FBI Nourerrahmane (talk)

Of course I remember that. Part of the problem was that the price of tulip bulbs for example went nuts in that period and I wasn't sure if radishes were scarce. It's a big discrepancy from the usual value of either slaves or radishes or onions, right? I think it is an interesting detail like the coffeehouses.

Revue: That's really interesting, and great source btw. Maybe we should send that in to wiktionary also. Chaoux had not occurred to me but that would seem like a valid plural to me for whatever that is worth. Is there some difference in meaning between chaouche and chaoux? Just asking because they would be pronounced differently. Maybe singular and plural?

PS Are you familiar with the White Cloaks in Game of Thrones? user:Elinruby 01:44, 10 June 2024. Missing sig added by scope_creepTalk 09:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anyway it sounds like that is what they were. I changed the unlikely spelling Chaouchs to Chaoux. I still need a hint about the gunners. Elinruby (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Gunners are those who serve in the Artillery. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No idea who the White Cloaks are, i haven't seen GOT entirely Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
So why are they getting a special mention, is what I don't understand then probably. White Cloaks are another name for the Kingsguard. This may not be mentioned as much in the TV series as in the books. Jaime, the brother of the Queen, is a member of the Kingsguard, if that helps. Sort of a cross between bodyguards and fixers, is where I was going with that Elinruby (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see, here they are more likely a police watching over governement officials, and they answer to the dey alone. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Both, they guard and spy the the officials at the same time, i might adress them when i start working on the Odjak of Algiers again, this article is about the military government of Algiers, and needs a lot of work.
The gunners, or those who serve in the artillerty corps are known as "Tubjiyya" and they have a seperate unit but still answered to the Agha of the janissaries (who happen to be both the minister of defence in the cabinet and the commander in cheif of the army of Algiers)
Regarding GA status, i think scope is more fit to answer this question. i think we added all that was required in the peer review. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
when you say watching over, do you mean to guard or to spy on? It pretty much fits, but an analogy isn't much good if it needs an explanation. As it is, just asking questions in case it seems like a good idea to go deeper. I still don't understand why a gunner is distinct from a janissary, but I am not sure how much this matters. I will be back later on another device that is better able to get to sources and maybe that will tell me. We're almost done. I am still finding problems but they are further and further apart and smaller and smaller. What is the status of the GA nomination right now?
We need to renominate it and start from scratch at WP:GA. It was a fail on the previous GA. scope_creepTalk 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's had one GA fail. I thought Nour re-nominated it then put that nomination on hold? Elinruby (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It was removed by @Mathglot since the article wasn’t ready to be submitted yet. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Right; withdrawn, not failed. By the way, it is currently listed as  -class; is it worth getting reassessed to see if it meets the criteria for   or  -class? Mathglot (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it has had quite a bit more work than your average C or B class, but since we have an unspecified complaint about references and I am in fact finding problems there, albeit small, I would say wait a few before submitting anything anywhere. I definitely am way too involved to review it myself and whether it is a good idea to be a B class going in is a good question. I am ok with what people think. Elinruby (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I never came across the word, but speaking strictly from orthographic rules in French for pluralization of words ending in -ch, the rule is add -s. French nouns ending in -ch are extremely rare and almost all are loanwords like sandwich. The plural of sandwich is sandwichs (no change in pronunciation) and is even officially in the J.O., along with a lot of other loanwords per the 1990 orthographic regulation. According to these rules, chaouch, if that is a singular noun, would become chaouchs (no change in pronunciation) in the plural. Mathglot (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I stand corrected for saying it violated the rules of French then. I still like chaoux better though, and since it is attested and the change is already made I think I will leave it that way. Thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done for a while edit

A lot of the alts are done, but someone should check to make sure it's all of them. Some of them are better than others, feel free to edit. Got a lot of small problems taken care of. Back later. Elinruby (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I check all the alts today. They are all done. scope_creepTalk 17:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK good. The standardization on diwan with an accent circonflexe on the a only and a lower case d is complete, as is, as far as I can tell, janissary with a lower case J. On italics, I left most foreign language words italicized but removed italics from words that are frequently used in the articles such as the titles dey and bey. All of that is as far as I can tell done. Got a bunch of spelling, not sure it was all of it though. Main article should read a lot better and possibly is done. I would like to go over it again. History is getting there. I found it a little harder to proofread since I am starting to know it by heart. I am going to go do some Sunday afternoon things and will be back later.
There will be a lot of folk looking at it at fac, experts and if there is problems with the spelling of diwan, then it will be surfaced there. scope_creepTalk 10:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well Nour agonized over it, so I am pretty confident that what we did here is at least defensible. The major point though was to spell it the same way consistently in the article, even though the sources don't. Because it is bad enough that the *people* all have three names and who knows how many titles. By the way, I did a pretty deep dive into the Manual of Style over something else (Pied-noir vs. Pied-Noir) and as far as I can tell from a fairly detailed examination there is no mention at all of the sort of nomenclature we have going on here in for example Hassan III Pasha, or pretty much anything on the African continent at all Elinruby (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

References edit

Anybody have any idea which one the reviewer was looking at when he failed us for this?? Elinruby (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No idea why anyone would fail this article because of citations, they probably thaught that lede should be cited too... Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Last map edit

The last map, Map of the Barbary coast in 1667, by Richard Blome, is stellar. scope_creepTalk 20:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

agree Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

War with Spain section edit

a couple of things I just wanted to check on

  • in the caption of the Fort Santa Cruz image, I changed "chapel" to "mosque" because it appears to be a mosque with a dome and a minaret. It occurs to me however that "chapel" might be right if the Spanish repurposed the building.
Also I have spent a ridiculous amount of time messing around with [2]; it looks gorgeous, the whole project, but I can't seem to find a link to either a transcript or any kind of recording -- is that right, or is my antiquated technology interfering with something?
Is this for an external link? scope_creepTalk 06:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've emailed the museum. See what they say. scope_creepTalk 06:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I realize that we are not really looking for more sources, but we don't seem to have all that many from a Spanish point of view, and well, it's a candidate for Further reading. On that subject, all the stuff with sources -- let me see if I understand this correctly -- After all of the moving and splitting was done, there were sources in both articles that were not being used in the particular article although they were in the other. And some also that were no longer used in either one? So is there a complete list of these extra sources? I think we should preserve that work somewhere. We are doing that, right?
Going back to a deep dive
Elinruby (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Its something to think about. I removed the FR sections on advice from the reviewer as its assumed all reference would be used. Only a single ref remained when I cross-checked them, I found that all of those sources were used in at least one of the articles. scope_creepTalk 06:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
that's what I thought you said but I didn't quite believe it. That's a huge number of references Nour mostly compiled by himself. As for the link, idk, are you finding any actual content? If it's just a sort of outline of "things we have but aren't telling you about" I don't see the point even if it is gorgeous. I am not going to Palma anytime soon. It's just a thought. Let me know if they answer you though. Elinruby (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yip. scope_creepTalk 11:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Elinruby: Nothing back from the Museu de Palma. It could be weeks or longer before they respond from prior experience. I did check youtube and her own site. I don't think we should wait for them. scope_creepTalk 16:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No I don't either. I wasn't suggesting that. It's a shiny object I noticed. If we can find a way to use it, great. Otherwise, we defintely already have sources. My phone crashed last night. It's been complaining about storage for a while. There will be a slight delay while I coax it into letting me copy off some content, and some related computer stuff that has been much-delayed. Top priority is the two reference errors at the Regency article. Elinruby (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Phone issue seems to be fixed. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The fundamental pact edit

I was reading the content of the fundamental pact or ahad aman as it’s named in its original language, i have found that it was in fact amended in 1748. The original pact goes back to 1657. It even states the names of those who signed it including the commander in chief who would start the the janissary revolution two years later in 1659, Khalil Agha. (P 218)

Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

ahad aman is not the name of the person? scope_creepTalk 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, its the Arabic name of the charter of the regency of Algiers, the fundamental pact. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It literally translates into « pact of trust » Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Lol. Thats funny.I thought it was a dude. Ref 207 will need fixed then. I'll do it. scope_creepTalk 19:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks scope! Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Map discussion at Alawi sultanate edit

There is an ongoing discussion relating to the main map used in this article. Your input would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note: I renamed this section to 'Map discussion at Alawi sultanate' (was: 'June 2024'). Mathglot (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion there is of about the map used for the infobox here and of how to repurpose it for that article. Nour has objections to the map proposed there based on scale among other things, as I understand it. In any event, my takeaway is that that discussion is related to this article but does not affect it.
in related matters, I produced a version of the same map that labels the Sahara based on something someone suggested elsewhere (on this page I think) but did not get any answer when I asked if I should upload it. Want me to put it here so people can look? Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

source badly needs a second look edit

Taking advantage of the corsairs' reputation as "holy warriors" and social divisions between urban and rural populations, Hayreddin bolstered his ranks with Andalusi refugees and local tribesmen,[40]

Needs to be reworded. It's pretty far from what the source says. For a start, Andalusi refugees are not mentioned. This is a true statement for some point in time but it is not supported by this source. Second, this is a far more positive presentation than is found in the source. The source is cited in two other places in the section and those instances seemed fine. I am going to take the refugees out but this will not resolve the issue. Will post here if I find a way to do it myself. Elinruby (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is much better, want to take another look later, but pretty much resolved.Elinruby (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Barbary wars section edit

willing to curb American trade in the Mediterranean if this was intended to mean voulant it does not. Checking to make sure before I call this an idiom fix. Substituting "wishing" would be enough, but would still be a touch... foreign. Probably can do better after looking at source. Elinruby (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it's more adequate with the source now. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Another true statement unsupported by source that does discuss the topic edit

Algiers officially became part of the Ottoman Empire under Suleiman I in the spring of 1521.[37] Statement is true, source talks about this topic (I guess... it's in the title) but the link goes to an abstract which does not specifically support the date it is used to cite. Elinruby (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is now fixed Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not really based on the abstract, but I just realized that this is an open-access article and I am not sure what other link you could give to a specific page. Sorry to be confusing. I think the new wording is an improvement though, and I will download the source. I expect now this will be fine but I haven't done that yet.

slight disconnect edit

The sultan called Barbarossa to the Porte in 1533 to become Kapudan Pasha (Admiral). He put Hasan Agha in charge in Algiers as his deputy and went to Constantinople.[56] Two years later in June 1535, Charles V of Spain conquered Tunis, held by Hayreddin at the time.[57]

Ok but when last heard from Hayreddin was in Constantinople. Was he back or should that say something else like "Hasan Agha" or "Algiers" or "the Algerians"? Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

on re-reading the source, I see. He took it as the Ottoman admiral not on behalf of Algiers. Will find a way to improve that, or if someone else does, please let me know. Elinruby (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also Barbary Wars edit

Being the most notorious Barbary state,[245][246] Neither one of these sources uses the word notorious. Biggest and strongest is not the same thing.Elinruby (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Onion as the price of a slave edit

I guess this must have been discussed at the main article, but it was added here also (?) Anyway I just wanted to say I noticed it here and the wording is good. Assuming the source verifies, that's really great, good detail. Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hassan Bey Bou-Hanek edit

Is Hassan Bey Bou-Hanek [fr] the same person as Hassan Bey of Constantine sent a force of 7,000 men led by Danish slave Hark Olufs to invade Tunis in 1735, and installed bey Ali I Pasha[183] as a vassal of Algiers who promised an annual tribute to the dey.[183][184]? Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Moroccan campaigns edit

I think the timeline in the second paragraph might be scrambled. Ref 197 is talking about Laghouat. And why do we care about a letter? Elinruby (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply