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.
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.
Why are the tripolitans branded "perfidious"? Not only are there no rules in war; the Americans used "flag tricks" first!
I do not see any significant difference in the ways the two different sides disingenuously used their flags that merits labelling one side "perfidious" (complete with a wholly inappropriate link that details the Geneva Convention prohibition that came into effect a full 176 years later) and not the other?
Since the article is heavily visible I'm going to hold off removing this POV language. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you don't understand what perdify is in a legal sense? It has always been considered perdify to fiegn surrender in order to gain advantage over another combatant. It is a well established fact that the Tripolitans in this engagement resorted to perdify in order to try to carry the day. Every single source that goes into detail mentions it. It is not acceptable to fight under a flag of surrender or another countries flag, the established practice was that using a false flag was acceptable up to the point of engagement itself. Once fighting was to begin, the combatants were required to raise their national colors.XavierGreen (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The current text says this about Tripoli: "a lateen-rigged polacca with two masts". But looking at the pictures, I doubt that Tripoli would have been a ship with two masts only. I assume that in Bainbridge's drawing this ship is the one to the right: it has two masts still standing, and one displaced. In this painting the ship to the right, which is being chased by the other, clearly has three masts. - Xbspiro (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we cannot trust the illustrations, and should clearly state the problems in the captions. In the painting of the fight, one ship looks like a frigate and the other like a western schooner. The chasing vessel in the other painting does not look like a schooner (never seen a schooner with studding sails), but I'm less sure about that one. I think the paintings are by people who knew what ships looked like, but did not know what type of ships were involved. --LPfi (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)