Talk:First Barbary War/Archive 1

The inclusion of Algiers and Tunis as part of the combatants but not putting it in the infobox, but also having Algiers in the causalities section
Alright so for one why is Algiers and Tunis listed as combatants in MOS:BEGIN despite the fact they never declared war on America? The whole point about the level of autonomy doesn't matter because America was never at war with the Ottoman Empire and as such never called upon their vassal/puppets/organized privateers. Secondly, normally I would be fine with the fact that you put them as combatants because I can see that as a simple misunderstanding of how much autonomy they had, but my main problem is that ya didn't put them under the Belligerents section in the infobox, BUT FOR SOME GOD AWFUL REASON, YOU PUT ALGIERS IN THE CAUSLITES LIST! WHHHHHYYYYY?!? Thank you and have a good day. Also this be a new section for the Algiers & Tunis debate because one, it was getting cluttered and needed a new place to talk, and two, that argument was back in 2014 and I don't feel comfortable replying to a talk section that old. It messes with me, and I don't like it. The Captain General (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is a mess, so there is no point in trying to salvage some of its POV. To begin with and as has been pointed it above, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco should not be listed as belligerents (or mentioned in the lead of an article about a war that involved the US and Tripoli). M.Bitton (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * your input would be highly appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * your input would be highly appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The First Barbary War was principally fought between the United States and Tripoli, however Morocco did in fact declare war on the United States and briefly and sent out its navy to attack American merchant vessels. American officials quickly brought the involvement of Morocco to and end and the Emperor of Morocco rescinded the declaration of war. Morocco's navy was extremely weak at the time, and the Emperor quickly backed down in the face of the flotilla the American's had deployed to the Mediterranian. Later on in the conflict, a local Moroccan governor sent out some vessels to attack American shipping, acts which were repudiated by the Emperor. Algiers and Tunis did not declare war against the United States and the American envoys in the region went to great lengths to placate the Algerian and Tunisian governments by sending them bribes and presents. Thus, Morocco should be left in the infobox for the single year it took part in the war, while Tunis and Algiers must be left out. As for the American side, at the start of the conflict Sweden was already at war with Tripoli and sent a squadron of frigates to blockade Tripoli, the Americans conducted joint operations with the Swedes until Sweden made a separate peace with Tripoli in 1802 and the Swedish force withdrew. The Kingdom of Sicily was also at war with Tripoli during this time period (and throughout much of the 1700's), it actively supported the American campaign by contributing several gunboats and sailors, placing them under American command to blockade and bombard Tripoli. Thus Sweden and Sicily should be left in the infobox on the American side.XavierGreen (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. It's true that the Moroccan incident (which barely lasted a couple of months) took place at the same time as the Tripolitan War, but as far as I know, it wasn't part of it and there never was any official declaration of war (the Sultan of Morocco and the governor of Tangiers denied any involvement). The incident is probably not notable enough to warrant its own article and I can understand if it's mentioned somewhere in the article's body, but not in the Infobox (which could easily mislead the readers). M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * what ? in fact Algiers was the second country at war with America after England since the Algerian-American war of 1785-1797 is not on wikipedia (confirmed by Oxford univeristy and on the wikipedia page of Muhammed V), The First Barbary war , the Algerians helped the Tripolitans to fight america , i also have a list of the dey and algerian general who lead the war if you need any informations/sources contact me i will be fine to give my sources but don't take down the edit i made. Historian loverr (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

74.15.131.143 needs to start explaining why they insist on adding Algiers as a belligerent without providing a valid source to back their claim. M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

what makes you think that the Regency of Algiers was involved in this war? Please provide the reliable sources (page numbers and ideally quotes, if not easily accessible) that support your proposed changes. M.Bitton (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC) the recent source that you added doesn't mention the first Barbary war. Did you mean to link to another page? M.Bitton (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I will reply to this later please add me on a social media because now i have to go. Historian loverr (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not a good excuse to add unsourced content and edit war over it. Your edit failed verification and will be reverted as such. M.Bitton (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

unsectioned sections

 * What does that even mean? This page wasn't created nor mainly edited by people participating in that project. I find it weird and unnerving to have some strange clique arise and declare that such-and-such page is now under their exclusive aegis. What's the point, exactly? --ESP 17:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

-

Later historical battles by the United States in North Africa aren't really related to the Barbary Wars. With an intervening 100+ years of French colonialism, as well as post-colonial independence, North Africa of today is significantly different from the Barbary pirate times.

-- ESP 03:06 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, today they respect all nonmuslims and Islam is moderate and peaceful.--89.144.221.250 (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Convinced the American whom/what?

A largely successful undeclared war with French privateers in the late 1790s convinced the American naval power was sufficient to protect the nation's interests -- Polaris999
 * Changed "convinced" to "showed". Thanks. -- ESP 21:22 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This is about the first Barbary War. Where there others? RickK 00:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Barbary Wars, mentioned just above on this page :-), points to a Second Barbary War in 1815. Stan 01:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So, I took out the big ol' Warbox that was added to this page. Here's why:


 * It took up a huge amount of space on a page that's about the First Barbary War. It wasn't about the First Barbary War.
 * The first 40 lines of Wiki markup in the page were now unreadable table stuff. That kind of thing really puts off potential contributors and editors.
 * It dictates one way of looking at the war: "This war is one in a line of wars between the United States and other people." The warbox tries to line it up as if it were a chapter in a book -- but it's not. It a node in a network. There are other ways of linking this article with other related articles. It's got tons of hyperlinks to people, places, and events surrounding the war. I think that's a better way to do things.
 * I think tables for tables' sake are silly.

I added a link at the bottom of the page to Military history of the United States, which probably gets everything necessitated by the warbox without a great big box. --ESP 21:58, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * And yet we have a whole bunch of WikiProjects that use many tables. Tables can be useful by offering a set of data available to the reader at a glance. WikiProject tables can be very useful by having that data in a predictable place and format. Granted the warbox removed was skeletal but it should go back as soon as all the fields can be filled in. All tables should be headed by an HTML comment telling the editor to scroll past the table code. --mav 10:07, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Declaration of war
Someone removed the sentence in the lede about this being the first declared war under the Constitution, calling it "misleading". I re-added the sentence. A declaration of war is a vote by Congress to commit troops to a conflict. It's one of the enumerated rights of the legislative branch of the US federal government. "Declaring war" doesn't not mean "they started it" -- it's a legal formality. There are only so many declared wars in US history -- the First Barbary War is the first of them. So, I think it's worth maintaining. --ESP 16:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting article about whether or not committing troops constitutes a formal declaration, or whether such a declaration is even required when another state has already formally declared war.
 * http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/41.html
 * I'll try some more neutral and illuminating language. Jinian 18:18, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed the sentence. Is there a citation that the Congress declared war? I cannot find any. The Naval History Center indicates that while Tripoi declared war on the U.S., the U.S. did not issue a declaration of war in turn. as described in the article, A Declaration of War is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. It does not seem to be merely a commitment of troops to a conflict. older &ne; wiser 18:20, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Jinian, your expansion is just fine by me. Thanks. older &ne; wiser 19:00, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur. I did move the "declaration of war" section to its proper place in the timeline, though. I had always understood that the First Barbary War was the first declared war of the US, which is why it was in the lede. If it wasn't, then there's no reason to feature this fact. --ESP 20:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Curious The statute of 6 Feb 1802, "An Act for the Protection of the Commerce and Seamen of the United States, Against the Tripolitan Cruisers." makes mention of the "state of war." If that's not a declaration of war, it is certainly a de facto recognition of a state of war. Is there a requirement for a format of a declaration of war that I'm unaware of?

Kleptocracy
In a previous edit, the note about the North African pirate states was removed "for the NPOV policy". NPOV does not require removing uncomplimentary facts about any party. The Barbary states, financed almost exclusively by piracy, were about as close as you can get to a pure kleptocracy.

At the very least, the face that North Africa presented to the European world was purely piratical. At the very least, we need to mention why this war came about. --ESP 20:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'It is obvious to anyone not bedecked in a helmet and a drool cup that this was not a matter of paying a ransom so much as a fair exchange to end a war.'

More of a perspective?
This article's still written from a very US-centered perspective. Can we get some background on the Barbary states as well as the US background? The name of the Pasha who declared war on the US isn't even in here, for Pete's sake (though I've just added it). --Dvyost 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

moors
buried somewhere in Wikipedia I remember that Moors from Spain had become the leaders of the Barbary Pirates in North Africa. Any truth to this? Also more detail on the Barbary Staes would always be helpful. Thanks Hmains 00:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know but I've read the barbary pirates did speak spanish.PonileExpress (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's false, just read the quotation of the ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman in the article. Piracy and looting of ships and European cities was always part of the war against nonmuslims (like it was part of warfare between European nations - to some extend). Many raids against France or Italy actually started from muslim Spain at that time. The piracy in the region started with the the loss of power of the roman empire, was somewhat contained by byzantine empire for a short period, and gained momentum by the spread of Islam, because then it was a religious duty to wage war. That is how the muslims conquered Spain in the first place, it was a result of continuous raids from pirates.--89.144.236.221 (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Barbary States POV really necessary??
I'm not saying that this article is written from the Barbary States perspective, rather I'm questioning the need to even consider their perspective on things. They were a pirate-run state--kleptocracy, I believe was the term given. Does it really matter how they viewed things? If the modern North African countries that the Barbary States were a part of want to romanticize that part of their history, that's their prerogative, but why should everyone else accept it? I'm sorry, but I just don't accept the notion that all POV's are equal. Clearly, some are better left ignored.

Please sign your edits. Apologism aside, the word kleptocracy is not applicable. Check the article Kleptocracy. It refers to stealing from the citizens of one's own nation. It is also an informal pejorative word. Informal english does not belong on wikipedia. Furthermore, the term barbary states is a reference to barbarism, this is enough. Even furthermore, accuracy makes them city-states. Finally, "piratical" is POV- one could call the French and English "piratical" when they started privateering, or the English when they began empressment. It was not uncommon for bedouin states to ue raids as a form of income, this was a product and relic of a previously nomadic lifestyle where they raided and were raided. They did not consider it "piracy" which was a Western notion. Just as American Indians did not have a notion of war identical to that of the Europeans when they arrived- Please sign your comments. Angrynight 02:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Morocco and US Treaty
what did Morocco have to do with this war? The US and Morocco had a Treaty of Friendship since 1786. Was this treaty ignored and they warred? or did Morocco not control all its coast or what? Thanks Hmains 03:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work!
I'd just like to say that I found this article very informative, well-written, and to-the-point. A great job to all those who've worked on this article. I think with a few small tweaks (such as adding a few more references for some statements), this article could well be featured article status. — Aiden 06:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A... what?
From the last paragraph in the first section... "In 1786 a Negro and John Murray went to negotiate..." First of all, is there any information as to who this "Negro" was? And secondly, do I need to point out the inappropriateness of the term? Kakashi64 16 Feb 2007
 * It was vandalism. The original was in this edit:  (SEWilco 21:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

NPOV
This really needs to be rewritten from a more neutral point of view - right now, it reads like it's taken straight from a US-American history book. It's certainly a good start for an article, but it still needs work in order to not focus pretty much entirely on and unabashedly favour one side - which it currently does. -- Schneelocke 11:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I point out there were many sides, as the pirates were blackmailing several countries. The article has the name "First Barbary War" because it is focused on the war between the U.S. and the pirates, not all the activites of the pirates.  (SEWilco 16:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC))
 * I see only minor issues with POV. I am far more concerned about the erroneous characterization of the Tripolitan Navy as "pirates" (a term used nine times in the article) and the sloppiness of the US Naval section and warbox which essentially excludes the US Navy.  Auror 16:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 65.209.62.115 (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)They WERE pirates.

Background and overview
"Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800" Please clarify amount. Is that total ransom for all the years together? Yellowriver101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowriver101 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I understand the sentence is that in 1800 the money that the US had generated from its country was wasted on tribute?Tourskin 22:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia needs a better defined policy (with several examples to explain the concept to us amateur would-be editors) to cover writing articles where there may be significant differences by reputable sources, historians, scientists, politicians, (and other leaders of rank) in points of view---in interpretation of historical data--here for instance...

Why pretend that all significant historical arguments---disputes are settled??? Thus, Wikipedia articles on subjects where there is some current controversy tend to EVENTUALLY reflect only the viewpoint of the final Wikipedia editor.

Presumably, the differing views (by historians) on aspects of the Crusades might be one issue here...maybe others. Why not put in a section saying DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS---and note the points fought out ELSEWHERE by historians of rank???Victorianezine (talk)
 * There does not have to be a separate section for differing POVs. All a writer has to do is say "such and such historian says this...but the other historian says that." It is done all the time in historical writing. The problem with this article is that no one is cited. Lists of "further reading" or random external links are not sources. When writing about history one must add a citation (an in-line footnote) for every quote and paraphrase. That is how it is done.  Obviously there was a lot of work put into this article, too bad the principal authors slept during the class on citing sources.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quibble, wikilink, and info re Jefferson quote of Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja
I'm speaking here of "The ambassador answered us ..." at the bottom of the Background and overview section. My quibble is that the cited supporting source does not support the introductory assertion that Jefferson reported this to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress. I'm pretty sure that I've seen that assertion supported elsewhere, but haven't turned anything up with a quick google search. I've wikilinked Michael Oren as the person who made the speech cited as the supporint source -- FWICT this is the right person but, as I'm not 100.00% certain of that, I'll ask someone to remove my wikilink if I haven't got it right or if you're uncomfortable with it. Finally I'll pass along the info that. can also be cited as a supporting source for the quote itself, but not for the assertion that Jefferson reported it to Jay and to Congress. Hitchens, incidentally, mentions in that article that he differs with Oren about whether Jefferson went to war reluctantly or eagerly. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally comments:


 * Unfortunately, Michael Oren's comments (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/11/michaelOren.html) contain no sources/footnotes to the original report from Jefferson. Additionally, the above mentioned article by Christopher Hitchens is also un-sourced.


 * In searching Jefferson's letters (at least those online), the only letter in 1786 regarding the Barbary Pirates is to John Adams, and is contained at the following two links: 1. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=46&division=div1; 2. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl46.htm


 * I originally asked: "Although there is much "second hand" citing of Jefferson's report, has anyone found the text of the original document quoted by Oren and Hitchens?" Since then, I have found another "second hand" citing of the Ambassador's response to Jefferson, but in a much earlier text; The Atlantic Monthly from October 1872 (http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/pageviewer?ammem/coll=moa&root=/moa/atla/atla0030/&tif=00419.TIF&view=50&frames=1).  Although I have updated the quote in the article to reflect the earliest source, I am still looking for the original document from Jefferson to Sec. State Jay.  Studentofthe193 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that what you are looking for may be viewed at the following URL: LoC MTJ Letter of March 28, 1786: Page 2 of 3 pages The entire letter (of which I only scanned small portions of all 3 pages) appears to be a summary of John Adams' and Thomas Jefferson's attempt to negotiate with the Ambassador of Tripoli. I believe this is from collected works of Thomas Jefferson, though I can't be certain, all the more because I am not entirely convinced that Jefferson wrote this particular letter. Its closing is initialed by both "J.A." and "T.J.," then signed by John Jay. I don't believe that it should be represented as a letter from an individual, because it is a report of the work of the two men.


 * It may interest you to know how I found this page at the Library of Congress. I looked through the books, "John Adams" by McCullough and "Victory in Tripoli" by London, to find what information I could on the meeting. I decided to do a Google search on 3 phrases: "John Adams" "John Jay" "drop in the bucket," which took me to NYT: "Terrorism, Part II" by Steven D. Levitt. One of the comments made by a reader cited the bibliographic info I needed: Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954), Vol. 9, p. 358, Report of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to John Jay, March 28, 1786. I did a search on the date of the purported letter, along with the relevant names, 1 at a time. That led me to Clipmarks: "Distorting Jefferson’s Thoughts on Islam". A reader of that page refuted the author, by writing to Joshua London (author of "Victory in Tripoli"). He cites 3 places that have published the report, followed by a link to the LoC.


 * 1. "American Peace Commissioners to John Jay," March 28, 1786, "Thomas Jefferson Papers," Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of Congress.
 * 2. "American Peace Commissioners to John Jay," March 28, 1786, in Julian P. Boyd et al., eds., "The Papers of Thomas Jefferson" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955), volume 9, pp: 354 (there are plenty of other references to this meeting in this volume -- which is now searchable online through Amazon.com if you have an account -- go to [WIKIPEDIA BLACKLISTED URL] and click on the "search inside the book" link)
 * 3. "The Adams-Jefferson Letters: the complete correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams" edited by Lester J. Cappon, Volume I, pp: 121, 126, 127.


 * So, thanks to Joshua London for digging up the original report in the Library of Congress, and thanks to the bloggers who cited the information on the Web, where Google could find it. Pooua (talk) 23:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweden?
Why is sweden listen on the US side of this war? There is (as far as I can see) no mention what so ever of sweden in the entire article and I have no recollection of sweden ever fighting a naval conflict that far from "home"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.13.115.80 (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Needs Serious POV Changes
"Then-ambassador to France Thomas Jefferson argued that conceding the ransom would only encourage more attacks ("Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute"). His objections fell on the deaf ears of an inexperienced American government too riven with domestic discord to make a strong show of force overseas."

Way out of neutral POV. Pritchard (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In what way? The new government was inexperienced and ridden with internal disputes - unless someone with better knowledge corrects me. You know, listing weaknesses isn't a violation of POV.Tourskin (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This passage is perfectly acceptable. The statements are certainly verifiable and the language is mellow at best.  Auror (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it in Wikipedia's interest to criticize right from wrong? The passage stuck out as "should have been avoided very bad that they didn't listen to him".  I see how the passage is acceptable, but the passages in this article seem written in a very pro-American view.  Rather than stating historical facts, I'm feeling a lean towards anything not pro-American being criticized ("bad things").  While Thomas Jefferson being ignored may be true, and the end results are all facts, to decide what the best or "right" decision was is wrong of Wikipedia to do.  Pritchard (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Truth #1: Jefferson did not want to pay tribute; Truth #2: He believed tribute would encourage more attacks; Truth #3: The Congress generally ignored him; Truth #4: The standing Congress was inexperienced; Truth #5: The standing Congress was wracked by sectional and political disagreements; Truth #6: Congress paid the tribute rather than making a show of force.
 * This is not a case of the article taking a POV on the matter. Rather, the passage you provided merely states a series of incontrovertible truths which do not express any POV.  The passage does not project, "Congress approved the tribute because it lacked the moral constitution and bravery to make a show of force when it was clearly necessary."  There's no POV problem. Auror (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been reading several Wikipedia articles related to the Barbary nations and a few books and articles. My impression is, the books are fascinating reading and the Wikipedia articles are written by amateurs. It isn't just the POV; the articles look like they were written in brief snippets by a committee that only skimmed a few Web articles for source material. They all look ugly. Important facts are distorted and the writing does not flow.


 * I have been focusing my attention on the Treaty of Tripoli article, but I think there is material on it that should be in this article. Like all the Barbary articles, it needs work. I am going do my best to clean this up, but it is a massive undertaking, and likely will take several months to a year of constant work to get all the articles where they need to be. Pooua (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am interested in the observation made in comments above mine that state this article is written from a U.S. perspective. I am forming the impression that the tone of the article is being set by people who have a very different understanding of the period than what I find in books. In particular, the tone suggests that Jefferson promptly pushed Tripoli into war, then engaged in war without Congressional consent. The Treaty of Tripoli article was even more blatant, pinning the blame for breaking the Treaty on Jefferson. None of that is supported by historical documents. Pooua (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Treaties
An article on the First Barbary War should include some mention of the Treaty that was broken when the war was declared. The U.S. had a relationship with the Barbary nations that is not described in the article, but is important to understanding how the war broke out. Pooua (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute"
The article throws out the quote, "Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute" immediately after stating that Thomas Jefferson argued against paying ransom to the Barbary nations. I see a few things wrong with this. One is that the phrase is famous for a completely unrelated reason, namely, the "XYZ Affair" involving France. Another problem is that it is unsourced. If Jefferson actually used the quote, its context should be given, because the quote is mainly associated with this other event. Pooua (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed Sweden
Sweden was for some reason listed as a participant of this war. I removed it since I could fine no reference what so ever of sweden or any swedes in the entire article. Searching through my own reference library for this period I found that while it is true that sweden (as many other minor nations) did pay tribute there were never any open hostilities. This is the only reference I could find of any relations between sweden and the barbary states and as such I removed the swedish flag and the reference of sweden being a participant of the war until 1802. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.13.115.80 (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Sweden was indeed at war with tripoli from almost the same time the united states was until 1802. This article leaves alot out about the barbary war and i intend to revise it completely and cite the proper sources when i have the time. But to satisfy your objections, sweden sent a squadron of several ships to blockade Tripoli harbor, they where already blockading tripoli harbor when the americans arrived and participated in several minor insignifigant actions as well as one larger action against the pirates. I intend to make an article about this larger action as and as stated before add much about the war that is unsead here. If you read a scholarly book on the barbary wars you should be able to find more information. The swedes left the war after paying tribute because they felt that they had accoplished little for much effort and were simply wasting time and money, as did the united states congress early on in the war. XavierGreen —Preceding comment was added at 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Sweden did indeed send ships in 1801-1802 which as I understand it where intended to cooperate with Dale. They blocked the harbor of tripoli and secured the release of 137 swedish sailors before returning home. I've found no reference to swedish ships engaged in combat as of yet. Finally managed to get a reasonaly good source of information about this incident, regreatably it's in swedish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.20.50 (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter if it is in Swedish or English, it could be included, at least until an English source of the same quality is found. As a Swede myself, I would have no problems reading it.  I have actually read a short article about this war in a Swedish historic monthly paper (or whatever it is called in English).--KMA &quot;HF&quot; N (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Perhaps these might be useful:
 * , "He had just involved himself in a war with Sweden, and a fleet from that country had already entered the Mediterranean ..." (speaking of Pasha Yusuf)
 * , "A Swedish cruiser was also off the port, assisting to blockade." Also see footnote, "Sweden was at war with tripoli, at this time,, also, but peace was made in the course of the summer."
 * , "My mediation was accepted : The Minifter and the Rear-Admiral repaired to the Commiffarial Houfe of France, and we entered on the Negotiation; the Pascha demanded a confiderable Sum, and the Augmentation of the Annual Tribute. He urged a treaty made Two Years ago, by an Envoy of the King of Sweden, which affured the Payment of 245,000 beayy Piaftres, and an Annuity of 20,000. He Added that the Two years of War had Subjected him to ...".
 * I'm no historian&mdash;there are probably other sources out there. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Frigate" vs. Brig of War vs. Schooner to describe USS Enterprise (1799)
I'm boldly reverting this edit in which 71.146.232.242 changed the description of the USS Enterprise from "frigate" to "Unites States Brig of War" (sic., sp.). My reasons for this because I see: I don't feel strongly about this, but please do consider the above before reverting my reversion. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The preceding paragraph begins:"In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates ..."
 * 2) Wikipedia has no article on Brig of War
 * 3) Brig (disambiguation) explains: "A brig is also a type of ship which is derived from a brigantine."
 * 4) Brigantine explains that "In sailing, a brigantine is a vessel with two masts, at least one of which is square rigged."
 * 5) The illustration in USS Enterprise (1799) shows her to be a two-masted vessel sporting a fore-and-aft mainsail and square-rigged foremast.
 * 6) this page says: "The Brig of War is a two-masted vessel sporting a fore-and-aft mainsail and square-rigged foremast. This rig gives the Brig of War unique sailing qualities, and a skilled master can maneuver her with great ease and elegance."
 * 7) I conclude from the above that it is correct to refer to the Enterprise as a Brig of War. However...
 * 8) USS Enterprise (1799) describes her as a schooner.
 * 9) This NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER page also describes Enterprise as a schooner.
 * 10) Schooner says, "A schooner is a type of sailing vessel characterized by the use of fore-and-aft sails on two or more masts.
 * 11) Frigate says: "A frigate [frĭg'-ĭt] is a warship. The term has been used for warships of many sizes and roles over the past few centuries."
 * 12) This article should not be overly concerned with the technicalities of nautical nomenclature.  Though all three terms are arguably technically correct ("schooner" might be questionable) as descriptions of the Enterprise, "frigate" seems to be the most generally applicable description, is consistent with the description used in the preceeding paragraph for the group of ships, and seems to be an adequate description for purposes of this article.

Commanders
This goes for all the other war or battle pages also, should the American president be mentioned as a commander since he is the Commander in Chief the armed forces and all orders technically have to be approved by him, as well as the fact that he ordered the ships to in the first place?PonileExpress (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes.Student7 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of info on the use of the Arab / Christian / Greek mercenaries
This is a very US POV article - and is written to imply that the US forces alone defeated the barbary forces. In reality, the land victories would not have been possible without the use of large numbers of mercenaries (vastly outnumbering the US service personnel)216.107.194.166 (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So if you have any verifiable, reliable secondary sources on the number and composition of the land forces, please update the article yourself, or consider putting citations to those sources here. N2e (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Drive-by comment: this might be a suitable supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only action that America used mercenaries in was the Battle of Derne at the end of the war. The American army at Derne consisted mostly of mercenaries with about a dozen American marines and as well as Hamet and perhaps a dozen or so of his followers who were not mercenaries. No other battle of the war involved mercenaries. Most major works on the subject do not have very many specific details on the mercenaries beyond their involvement in the battle.XavierGreen (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The only action on Land - and the most significant action of the war (as it involved the taking of enemy territory), was the Battle of Derne. It was mainly a mercenary army & the article should reflect this fact.216.107.194.166 (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There was one other land action at Tripoli when an american raiding party came ashore and burned some vessels and engaged some Tripolitian forces. By far the largest battle was the Battle of Tripoli in 1804 where the entire american squadron engaged the whole Tripolitian fleet and bombarded the city.198.138.208.174 (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Treaty Name?
The article is mention from the treaty, but what was the name of the treaty?146.235.130.52 (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently, it is "Treaty Of Peace and Amity between the United States of America and the Bashaw, Bey and Subjects of Tripoli in Barbary" (See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/bar1805t.asp). It's also called the Treaty of tripoli. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cite Sources!!!!!
It is so frustrating to see an article with this much content and so few citations. The reason the POV is in so much question is that no one knows the sources of this information. If you are going to go to all the trouble of writing this much, why not cite the sources?????? It really isn't that hard. It is a lot harder for someone else to try to come back to it and figure out where you got the information.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

removing the mentioning of Sweden in the introduction
Sweden is briefly mentioned in the introduction, but never again in the article proper.

I can see this has been brought up several times previously here on the talk page; but with no improvement.

Hence I conclude the article quality will be improved by removing this brief mention that sets up a promise that isn't delivered by the article. Please do not re-introduce Sweden's participation in the introduction alone: if you mention something in the introduction, it must also be covered by the article itself.

Do note I am not contesting the claim that Sweden did participate; I am not suggesting they did not. This is not a question of facts; it is a question about writing a good article - the introduction is not a good place for facts that aren't covered elsewhere. CapnZapp (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire article needs to be rewritten, most of the events of the war are not covered at all. For example their were four seperate American squadrons that were detached to tripoli, the events covering the first two squadrons are barely mentioned in the text of the article. The article as it currently stands constists almost entirley of background and aftermath information with little coverage of the actual course of the war itself.XavierGreen (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

'Power vacuum'
I have removed the section headed 'Power vacuum in the Mediterranean'. This suggested that the Knights of Malta were a major naval force in the Mediterranean and a serious check on the activities of the Barbary States until their expulsion from Malta in 1798, an event which is therefore presented as transforming the situation. This is nonsense. The Knights had been thoroughly insignificant as a naval force throughout the eighteenth century, and the seventeenth for that matter. They did a little slave-raiding of their own against Muslim shipping but were quite incapable of giving Christian ships and coasts any meaningful protection against Muslim slavers. Zburh (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There growing inactivity as the 18th century is what ultimately led to the resurgence of the Barbary States, I think ultimately it should be mentioned in the main article about the barbary states at least.XavierGreen (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph seems confused
The war stemmed from the Barbary pirates’ attacks upon American merchant shipping in an attempt to extort ransom for the lives of captured sailors, and ultimately tribute from the United States to avoid further attacks, much like their standard operating procedure with the various European states.[1] Before the Treaty of Paris, which granted America’s independence from Great Britain, American shipping was protected by France during the Revolutionary years under the Treaty of Alliance (1778–1783). Although the treaty does not mention the Barbary States in name, it refers to common enemies between both the U.S. and France, which would include the Barbary States or pirates in general. As such, piracy against American shipping only began to occur after the end of the American Revolution, when the U.S. government lost its protection under the Treaty of Alliance.

Take a moment and read this. Shouldn't the attacks have commenced after the French Revolution, not the American? (The former being what dissolved the Treaty of Alliance?) Maybe someone wrote this when they were fatigued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixwordsofadvice (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yousef vs. Yusef
Re this edit and the one preceding it, I'm guessing that the individual at issue didn't spell his name either as Yousef or as Yusef but, rather, as something like "يوسف القرمانلي" and that this disagreement over the spelling here comes from a difference between Wikipedia editors regarding transliteration from Arabic to English. I note that the Yusef spelling is used in the wikilinked article, and that Yusef seems to be much more widely used in published books (see vs. . I suggest that this article adopt the Yusef spelling. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What about Yusuf, the name indicated on his article, Yusuf Karamanli? Yusuf seems to be the only spelling used on his VIAF control page as well. Ithinkicahn (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right; I ought to get my eyes checked. I didn't notice that I had arrived at that article via a redirect from Yusef. Above, I googled Yusuf, not Yusef -- probably cut&pasted from the article title. OK -- how about changing all (I count 3) occurrences in the article from Yousef Karamanli to Yusuf Karamanli? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I'll do it right now. Thanks for the dicussion! Ithinkicahn (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Combatants
The ottoman empire was at peace with the United States during this period, only Tripoli was at war with the United States. Although Tripoli was officially a vassal state of the Ottomans, it only was so in a nominal capacity (ie, providing a nominal tribute to the ottomans every year). Tripoli carried out its own foreign and domestic affairs with no interference from the ottoman authorities. Tunis and Algiers never declared war against the United States, and never engaged in hostilities against the united states during the time period of the First Barbary War. As such i have removed the Ottoman Empire, Tunis, and Algiers from the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents
Re
 * XavierGreen: (Algiers, the Ottoman empire, and Tunis were all at peace with the united states during this conflict. Only Tripoli and Morroco decarled war and carried out hostilities)  (del/undel)
 * Ithinkicahn (Still involved, as sub-provinces can't declare wars w/o home country)  (del/undel)

Hmmm.. Anybody can declare anything. The Mayor of San Diego could declare war on Mexico. What the government of the State of Caliifornia, or sovereign governments such as those of the U.S. and Mexico might think about that is another matter separate from such a hypothetical declaration. In the real world in 1896-1902, a revolutionary group existed in the Philippines which In the meantime, the Spanish-American War took place (sparked by events in Cuba, but involving other colonies of Spain), and Spain ended up ceding its colony in the Philippines (and other territories) to the U.S. Hostilities then ensued between U.S. forces and this Philippine revolutionary group, which considered itself to be a legitimate government. The hostilities developed into what is now known as the Philippine-American War (and by other nnames). That revolutionary group then The Philippine-American War ended in 1902 in military victory by the U.S.; no treaty or agreement between belligerent parties ever formalized the ending of the conflict. The actual history here is somewhat messier than what I've summarized above.
 * formed an insurgency against Spain
 * declared independence from Spain (which went unrecognized)
 * formed a series of insurgent governments in revolution against Spanish colonial rule
 * informally declared war on the U.S.
 * formed yet another embodiment of the revolutionary government
 * again declared war on the U.S., but more formally.

Other similarly complicated and confusing situations involving warfare without formal declaration and involving warfare declared in ways which some might consider to be not an entirely proper manner probably exist.

My point is that the making of a declaration of war and the recognition that a state of war exists are two different things. This article says,

infobox military conflict docs say, in part
 * combatants_header – optional – sets the header text for the combatants section. Default is "Belligerents".
 * combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. [...]

It looks to me as if the infobox ought to list actual belligerents. It might be appropriate to add a footnote clarifying the degree of involvement (or lack thereof) of nonbelligerents which shared governmental links with belligerent parties. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The three Ottoman Barbary vassal states were vassals in virtually name only. Each had their own militaries and international personalities. They declared war on foreign powers, signed treaties with foreign powers, carried out seperate foriegn policies from the Ottoman empire, and ran their domestic affairs without defference to the authoritity of the empire. At the height of barbary power, these three states were vassals merely in that once a year they paid a fixed tribute amount to the empire and recognized the Ottoman emperor as Caliph and overlord of the muslim world. The only belligerent powers were Tripoli (hence while contemporary documents refer to the conflict as the Tripolitian War) and for two very brief periods Morocco on one side and the United States and for the first year or so Sweden on the other. Algiers and Tunis were at peace with the United States throughout this period, though at times the threatened war with the United States if it did not meet its treaty obligations. The United States went to great lengths in order to keep Tunis, Algiers, and Morrocco out of the conflict. Algiers and Tunis at various points even offered to mediate a peace deal between the United States and Tripoli. I have read dozens of secondary and primary source documents regarding this conflict (including American consul to Tripoli James Leander Cathcart's personal journals relating to the conflict). If sources are required i can provide them with ease.XavierGreen (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Complicating this a bit more, though Morocco was not a part of this conflict, there was a period wherein the Abd al-Rahman, the Governor of Tangier in northern Morocco ordered his privateers to capture American merchant ships. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There were two periods of conflict with morocco. There was a brief period where the Sultan of Morocco declared war against the United States. Upon recieveing assurances from the United States, the treaty of freindship with the united states was re-ratified and this period of dejure war ended. Some time after that occured, the Governor of Tangier did indeed order privateers to attack american shipping until the Sultan ordered him to cease these activities. The Moroccan navy during this period was quite weak, and to my knowlege only two American merchant vessels were captured by Moroccan forces (i am unsure if it was during the dejure state of war, or during the period of hostilities spurred by Tangier). It is entirely possible that during the period of dejure war (ie declared war) that no actual hostilities occured between the US and Morocco. It should be noted that the United States never reciprocated a declaration of war against Morocco.XavierGreen (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"Scourge"?
Apart from the POV concerns previously raised by editors on this page, the first paragraph of the Background section shows blatant value judgment by calling corsairs the "scourge" of the seas. The section is written in such a way that it seems to almost legitimise the conflict and portray America's enemies as overall bad people. It needs a drastic rewrite, showing the other side (political, economic reasons that led corsairs to attack Americans; other reasons Americans would want to declare war on Barbary states, etc). Pikolas (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that the value judgement was made by the author of the work cited in support rather than by a WP editor. Is your objection based on your failure to find confirmation in the cited supporting source, or based on your own judgement? I'm located on a small island in the Philippines; I have no access to libraries and can't look at the cited page (p. 205) of that book to check it out. The book is not previewable onliine, but Google Books does offer a snippet view, and a search within the work for the word scourge brings up a snippet on page 205. That particular word does not appear in the viewable snippet but, judging from the success of the search, I would bet that the word does appear on that page. See ; the book also seems to be available via Questia here or via a search for the title there.


 * But then, considering WP:DUE, perhaps other verifiable sources of similar reliability exist which offer alternative viewpoints to the effect that the Barbary pirates were not a scourge of the seas. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing to consider when reading about this conflict is that the Barbary states generally waged war on other power's almost soley for economic reasons. The conflicts were not motivated by anything other than a desire for more wealth. Another factor to consider is that the Barbary states saw themselves at war with any country they did not have a peace treaty with. So for example, when the United States became independent, the Barbary powers (with the exception of Morroco) instantly saw themselves as being at war with it and its ships to be fair game for capture at sea. They were also rather notorious for recinding or breaking peace treaties at the drop of a hat, for a new war meant more booty and a new opportunity to raise tributary payments from European powers in exchange for peace. Also note that Tripoli was the power that declared war, although the United States undertook combat operations against the Tripolitians they never actually declared war against Tripoli. XavierGreen (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood (more or less, and until time fogs detail on it for me). We're defocusing from the topic of this section, I think, but it strikes me that if the above is supportable perhaps the article ought to clarify some of it and cite sources -- particularly as it relates to this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wiki search returns Battle of Santo Domingo (1586) for when England's Mariners Became the Scourge of the Seas. —Pawyilee (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Degree of autonomy from the Ottoman Empire
There have lately been a series of back and forth edits (note WP:EW and WP:BRD), regarding the degree of autonomy of the Barbary States from the Ottoman Empire. The most recent edit as I write this is this one, the edit summary of which says, "they were enjoying some kind of large autonomy but weren't 'quasi-independent', even, they never claimed it!" That edit and some or all of the preceding series of edits cites Page 39 of a source in support. I don't see any support on the cited page for an assertion on this issue, though it may contain support for assertions made earlier in the paragraph to which it is attached. Page 16 of the source cited, however, does say that the rulers of the Barbary States recognized exercised "a degree of autonomy". I have twiddled the citation to refer to pages 16 and 39 instead of to page 39 alone.

I note that there are other sources available re this issue (see e.g.,, , probably others). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * They were defacto independent from the empire. I will gladly back up my assertions with sources once i have some free time to put some stuff together. If you take a look at his edit history you will see that Omar Toons is a turkish nationalist who regularly goes around editing pages towards a turkish point of view.XavierGreen (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Sweden as co-belligerent
Beginning with "The American squadron joined a Swedish flotilla under Rudolf Cederström in blockading Tripoli, the Swedes having been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800...." American involvement in the Swede's blockade is now fully explained, so deleted the complaint at the head of the article.—Pawyilee (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"The United States Navy and Marines became a permanent part of the American government and American history"
The line "The United States Navy and Marines became a permanent part of the American government and American history" seems particularly vague and I would say too vague even with supporting citations (lacking) to stand as objective fact either the government bit or the history bit. Suggest delete this sentence or change it into a quotation from the work in cite-note 37. Georgebaily (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancies
I found two sources that listed several countries in a coalition with the U.S., including Morocco, which is interesting since Malta and Portugal are not listed anywhere else in this article, Sicily is only named in one other spot, and Morocco is also listed as being an enemy of the U.S. and the other countries. It would be great if someone would solve these discrepancies. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have read a great deal on this conflict, including Cathcart's own journals, reports given by US Naval officers deployed in the conflict, and correspondence back and forth between the US Naval department and the commanders sent to the Mediterranean at the time. There was no "coalition", as the United States government's official position was to avoid forming formal alliances with other countries. However there was talk of forming a coaliton of various neutral countries to handle the Barbary coast problem, but no coalition was actually formed. The American commanders were given the authority to cooperate with Swedish forces deployed against Tripoli, as Sweden had already deployed a naval squadron to fight the Tripolitions prior to the American's sending their own squadron. From what i've read and the sources provided, its not entirely clear as to whether or not Tripoli had declared war against Sicily or not, however Tripolitian corsairs were enough of a nuisance to the Sicilian government that they gladly leased gunboats to the American's and provided Sicilian sailors in an auxiliary capacity to man them. These Siclian sailors operated under the direct authority of the US Naval commander in the region, and not under the orders of their own government.
 * As for Morocco, in 1802 it declared war against the United States and captured two American ships. The American government heard rumors of this declaration but was not sure if it had actually occured, so it gave orders for the American commander in the Mediterranean to carry out operations against Morocco if it discovered that Morocco had indeed declared war. Once the Moroccan government discovered that its forces were vastly inferior to the American squadron pitted against it, it recinded its declaration of war and confirmed a peace treaty it has previously signed with the United States. Later in the war there again were reports that Morocco had declared war once again on the United States, as the Governor of Tangiers sent out his ships to attack American shipping, the Sultan when confronted disavowed the actions of the Governor of Tangiers and once again reaffirmed peace with the United States. The other two Barbary states, Algiers and Tunis, remained at peace with the United States throughout the First Barbary War, sometimes threatening to declare war, but deciding not to after recieving "presents" (aka bribes) from American consular officials stationed there. Algiers would later declare war against the United States during the War of 1812, sparking the Second Barbary War. None of the other Barbary states joined Algiers in declaring war against the United States, and once the War of 1812 had ended, the United States dispatched a squadron which destroyed part of the Algerian navy and intimidated them into signing a peace treaty.XavierGreen (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Tangier
(see Tangier), includes the section:
 * By the beginning of the nineteenth century, autonomous corsairs out of Tangier were attacking American shipping and holding the sailors of many nations for ransom. In response, US commodore Preble sailed into Tangier harbor in 1803 and pulled off a daring rescue of American prisoners.

Apparently this was in the midst of the First Barbary War but neither this page nor Edward Preble mentions the raid on Tangier. I'd be nice to hear more about it.—Mr Spear (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternatively, Constitution's page mentions a ship exchange following a squadron's arrival in Tangier in Oct. 1803. Probably the same thing and both sides are focusing on different parts of the event.—Mr Spear (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Description, etc.
This edit caught my eye. The edit summary reads:

The WP:Wikidata, WP:Short description, and WP:lead sentence ought to agree, or at least ought not to disagree, it seems to me. Given that, the question is what they ought to say.

I just took a look at, which is listed in the Declaration of war by the United States article as the authorization for use of force in this conflict and, as I read it, §3 there authorizes that use of force against, "the Bey of Tripoli [or] his subjects". Effectively, that seems to have been a declaration of war on the polity of the Karamanli dynasty, in the person of Yusuf Karamanli and his minions. I hope I've got that mostly right -- I'm not an academic. It seems to me that "Barbary pirates" comes closer to that than "Barbary states", though the Barbary pirates article seems to say that the pirates were based in several of the states.

I don't really have a suggestion about what the three ought to say, but it does seem to me that they ought to agree. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Jefferson tried to purchase treaties and the freedom of the sailors captured by Algeria?
The article says. "The U.S. Minister to France, Thomas Jefferson, decided to send envoys to Morocco and Algeria to try to purchase treaties and the freedom of the captured sailors held by Algeria." and cited Atlantic Monthly, but I looked at Atlantic Monthly for 1872 and couldn't find any article as cited. The bigger question is another journal put it quite differently. American Hostages in Moslem Nations, 1784-1796: The Public Response says it was a joint decision of John Adams and Jefferson to ransom the captured sailors, and made no mention of purchasing treaties. So the accuracy of the statement is in question. Department of States' summary of the war also makes no mention of purchasing treaties. Unless a clearer/better source comes out, I'll rewrite it with the source above. --Happyseeu (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no comment on the underlying point here except to mention WP:DUE if there is a differentce in viewpoints between sources, but I've redune that cite in the article. See here for the relevant page in the cited source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Gold price conversion error
The article states this

demanded $225,000 (equivalent to $3.5 million in 2020)

Back then a $20 US gold coin had just under an ounce of gold. $225,000 in those days would be over 10,000 of those coins or over 10,000 ounces of gold. While the price of gold varied in 2020, as it does every year, a price of $1,000 per ounce means a value of 10 million instead of just 3.5 million.

Someone is woefully lacking in their ability to do the conversion and this conversion error needs to be fixed. 108.20.180.22 (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe the conversion is done according to purchasing power parity or CPI, not the gold standard. Since the exchange value of gold can diverge significantly from other valuables on a barter basis, it's not surprising that it would lead to different results. The point is it was denominated in US dollar (regardless of the gold standard back then), not gold, so it should be converted to current US dollars, not the current value of gold. Converting to gold would amount to an investment of money into gold instead of other asset class. --Happyseeu (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)