Talk:Second Barbary War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Piracy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article lies in the latitude of WikiProject Piracy, a crew of scurvy editors bound to sharpen up all Wikipedia's piracy-related articles. If you want to ship with us and help improve this and other Piracy-related articles, lay aboard the project page and sign on for a berth.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Africa / Algeria / Libya / Morocco / Tunisia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Algeria.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Morocco.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia.
 
WikiProject Ottoman Empire (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ottoman Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottoman Empire and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

October 2005[edit]

That's a crock. This page was never created by that project, and it's not under any particular clique's protection. Where did this come from? What's the value in this tag? --ESP 17:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Warbox[edit]

I removed the big warbox from this page. See Talk:First Barbary War for my reasons. Please don't add it in without at least some discussion or rebuttal. --ESP 09:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Morocco[edit]

Was Morocco involved in this war? They were involved in the first one, but are left out of this article entirely. Were they no longer a Barbary State? Scott Ritchie 2 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)

Plagiarized?[edit]

While looking at this page and a section in Italic textAlgeria: a country studyItalic text (LOC, 1994), the last paragraph is lifted entirely from it. No credit in the article, either. What gives?

Bainbridge - hero of the First Barbary War?[edit]

William Bainbridge is called, here, one of the "heroes of the first barbary war"

In what way is being captured by a vastly inferior enemy, having not fired a shot in self-defense, having not even been HIT by enemy fire...in what way is all that deserving of the title "Hero"

William Bainbridge, who was a brutal captain (demeaning and punishing his common and able seamen freely) and who had been disgraced by both the French and the lord of Tripoli, deserves to be called an inept bungling fool who spent the better part of the First Barbary War in polite house arrest in Tripoli.

IMNSHO, of course...


Revisiting my comment: I should note that Captain Bainbridge DID have some spectacular successes in the War of 1812 (namely, NOT being captured by the British and taking at least one British man-o-war in direct action)... my objection here is in the phrasing which implies that his actions in the FIRST Barbary War made him "hero-material"

---

It's clear to me that a significant portion of the article itself is vastly flawed anyway in the area of historical accuracy, not counting POV. However, the characterization of Decatur as a hero of the First Barbary War is deserved, and on that count it would be truly difficult to contest. I do intend to make some needed alterations within the article to eliminate the inaccurate course of the conflict it presents. Auror

"Victory" in the first War?[edit]

How did signing a treaty and paying a $60,000 ransom (alot of money then) a victory?MPA 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The United States won most of the naval battles, inflicted the heaviest casualties and conquered enemy territory, thus cleary the strategic initiative was held by the US at the end of the war. Finally, they refused to pay tribute and from then onwards, the United States made it clear that tribute would not be paid. The $60,000 was explicitly explained as not tribute but ransom - and the US government at the time made it clear. Therefore, it was a vitory in military terms and the end results. Tourskin 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
But this issue should really be raise here. Thank you. Tourskin 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Decisive American victory and de facto British and Dutch victory[edit]

This article seems very biased re: "Decisive American victory and de facto British and Dutch victory".

The American role appears to have been confined to a surprise attack on the Algerian forces, the extraction of 10 of their countrymen and the payment of what looks to have been a bribe.

The Dutch and the British on the other hand took on the task of liberating all slaves & had a decisive victory over the forces of the Dey (and due to their direct action - took many casualties).

I appreciate this 'war' is of importance to the US - one of the first out of area actions it took, but the nations role should not be overplayed to the detriment of it's then allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.194.166 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bombardment of Algiers[edit]

Is not the Bombardment of Algiers a seperate conflict from the Second Barbary War? The United States was no longer at war with Algiers after the treaty signed in 1815.XavierGreen (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is - but it's a constant battle to keep the events seperate - every few days it seems like someone adds the British / Dutch action as part of the this war!216.107.194.166 (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Decatur's Squadron in the Second Barbary War[edit]

Someone has previously suggested a WP:MERGE of Decatur's Squadron in the Second Barbary War into this article, Second Barbary War. Clicking on the Discuss link leads here, but I find no discussion of the topic to date. So I'll start the discussion section.N2e (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SUPPORT the merge[edit]

  • SUPPPORT — With no sources for any of the (few) claims made in the Decatur's Squadron in the Second Barbary War article, I support the merge. If Decatur's Squadron is notable, it could be mentioned here if there are any verifiable, reliable secondary source citations for the facts and the notability. N2e (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE the merge[edit]

Other/comment[edit]

Merge complete?[edit]

So I put some time into integrating this into a decent article and Tahert14 reverts that without explanation? I see he is doing this kind of editing everywhere.. why is he still able to do that? --DeVerm (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

Location of Decatur's Squadron[edit]

In the section entitled "United States' response," it is said that Decatur's squadron was at New York, and left May 20, 1815. In the very next section, "Negotiations," it is said that his squadron left Gibraltar. It is not explained why the squadron went to Gibraltar, when they went there, or when they left. Indeed, it is the first instance of "Gibraltar" in the article. Could this be cleared up a little bit? It is very confusing. – 174.45.197.169 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that the wording implies that the squadron was on its way to Algiers. However, I still think it vague and wanting explicitness. – 174.45.197.169 (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How exactly was it a bluff?[edit]

I mean seriously, it's not like he couldn't come back with even more ships and ammunition... Granted, that would take weeks that they could try to fortify. It's kind of hard to defend against bombardment, regardless of your attempts at entoughening. Only a fool would want to deal with escalation and it would take an even bigger fool to think that he wouldn't. 2601:1:9280:155:214:85FF:FE15:4B0D (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)