Talk:XYZ Affair

Older
Thomas Jefferson, quoted in this article: Jefferson Would Have Stood With Cindy Sheehan noted that: "The spirits of the people were so much subdued and reduced to despair by the X Y Z imposture, and other stratagems and machinations, that they would have sunk into apathy and monarchy, as the only form of government which could maintain itself."

Is there not substancial speculation that X, Y, and Z were false flag agents of Adams used to stir up public indignation against France so that the Alien and Sedition Act could be past?

Two centuries on,do we know the identities of the agents? Bastie
 * the episode was real enough and the names are known. Read any of the books cited.Rjensen 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

bias?
It seems to me like the article reads with a very strong american bias, while mainly ignoring how the french saw this. Although this is hardly suprising, because quite possibly this entire article is written by american?s ;p Mathmo 13:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The contents of the article don't have a bias I can see, but there may be a strong bias of omission. It presents the prevailing contemporary American reaction to the affair, but does NOT present the contemporary French take on it. Is this because that information is mixed or poorly-documented or not widely known?  -t  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.52.228 (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a bias if the facts are plainly stated, as they are here. The French behaved arrogantly, and it's not like they can claim to have been antagonized by the Americans, whose merchants only wanted to make a profit while remaining neutral in the European wars. To claim that this article has an anti-French bias would be like saying that the article on World War II has an anti-Hitler bias.--Unregistered user 02-02-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.58.15 (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Money equivalence?
I know that $10M back then must have been a massive amount of money, especially since I don't think the Federal government had taxes yet at that point. Can someone do an article which shows approximate money equivalence at different points in history? I know it's not a simple subject, since barter, changes in the standards of living, and changes in the real cost of various things all contribute to distort things. Maybe the best way to do this would be to simply show the percentage change between decades, and make it clear that extrapolation beyond that decade of time makes the comparison increasingly tenuous. No matter how it's done, it would be nice to see roughly how much $10M back then would be in modern terms. --Scott McNay 06:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is extremely hard, agreed, because of the difference in standard of living, inflation, and so on. But the national debt as of 1800 was about $83 million . So asking for a bribe equating to a payment of over one tenth of the national debt back then would be akin to asking for $1 trillion today. (Please note that I assume that national debt and inflation are roughly on par between then and now, and so $1T is both original research and probably wrong. But at least it's a ballpark estimate.) Ourai  т с 02:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the bribe to gain access to the minister is about what the US paid 5 years later for all of Louisiana. Rjensen 02:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The bribe requested was about $250k, and the Louisiana Purchase was $15 M. Following a footnote on the Louisiana Purchase page, however, I ran across this handy tool for converting costs. Based on percentage of GDP, $10 M in 1797 dollars is about $300 billion in 2005 dollars. I have added the reference to the article.  Ourai  т с 22:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

-- The US reneged on its obligations to repay a loan citing that the loan was taken from the French King and that nothing was owed to the new French gov't. The French retaliated by rejecting the US ambassador and making monetary demands. To leave out this part and go straight to the seizure of merchant ships will of course paint a skewed picture of a bullying France. This matter is discussed right here on Wikipedia in the article on the Quasi War that resulted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.79.89 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

How much was the requested loan?
In reverting some vandalism, I also reverted a change to the amount of the requested loan. Looking through the article history, I see that it was changed from $10M to $12M only in October by an anon editor with little explanation, so the anon editor who changed it back to $10M (in December) may well have been right. I don't have ready access to any of the cited sources; someone who does please ensure that the correct figure is included (if definitively known). -- Pawl 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. Rjensen 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing details
The second paragraph is missing details essential fomr readability. What were the American delegates blamed for? What documents did the Jeffersonians want to see? And what report did Adams release? Also, I think the real names of X, Y, and Z belong in this paragraph rather than in a footnote.

logan act
I believe that the xyz affair was the dirrect cause of the Logan Act does anyone know if this is true (and even better - have a source)? Jon513 08:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WXYZ?
The Department of State cites the event as involving 4 French agents: Nicholas Hubbard (W), Jean Hottinguer (X), Pierre Bellamy (Y), and Lucien Hauteval (Z.)

Any ideas? Doomed Rasher (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Point of View
As mentioned above this article does suffer from being written entirely from the US point of view. Except for some minor problems that I have removed ("brilliantly") the wording does seem neutral enough, but it is essential to include the French reasons and interests in this story as well. Could any of the knowledgeable editors that has contributed to this article please address this? I assume at least some of the sources listed have information on this (they ought to being reliable academic secondary sources). --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * the article explains the French position in terms historians of both the US and France have agreed on. France wanted a large loan ($10 million), and the French negotiators wanted a large personal bribe ($250,000) for Talleyrand. I have added the cites requested.Rjensen (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is always nice to get more citations in the article, but I did not intent to question the validity of the statements. As I stated above the wording seems neutral enough, my objections was quite literally the point of view of the article (which incidentally may not be quite the same as the Wiki-POV, so the tag might not have been appropriate as it is more a content request). The problem is that the article does has next to nothing in the way of information about the French reasons for this and how the French public saw this incident etc, while it goes into some detail about the American deliberations and the public feelings in this incident. I would have thought that the various works cited did reveal something about this side of the matter. Was it only an "affair" in the American minds or did it have some sort of impact on the French as well? --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the French sources. It was a secret over there (and here too until Adams gave Congress the documents it demanded). The situation was not symmetrical. A large powerful nation --France--demanded bribes and tributes and loans and apologies--that had a major impact on the much smaller and weaker US. Brute force was standard practice in European diplomacy and the US did not make insulting demands on France. Why did France want money (it was fighting a big war); why did Talleyrand want a bribe (that's how it was done in Europe). the article reflects the point of view of the scholars in the field. Rjensen (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to check up on it. I guess I will have to settle with that, although for my personal curiosity it would have been nice at at least to learn about what Talleyrands thoughts had been (perhaps disclosed in letters or memoirs of people close to him) when he learnt that this had cost him a potential ally (at least economically). But if no historian has found any sources on this or just not covered it, then it is clear that it will not be possible to add information on that side of the story in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.215.226.225, 5 April 2010
editsemiprotected

In this paragraph

Adams decided on sending Pinckney as part of the commission as Franco-U.S. relations had recently worsened by Talleyrand's rejection of Pinckney as America's minister to France. The French continued to seize American ships, and the Federalist Party, incited by Alexander Hamilton advocated going to war. Congress authorized the build-up of an army

a comma is needed after Alexander Hamilton and a period is needed after the word "army".

Thanks.

98.215.226.225 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Avic enna sis @ 02:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong date?
If i am not mistaken, didn't Adams' envoys reach paris in 1797, with John Marshall reaching New York in 1798? I know the Quasi War lasted from 1797 10 1800, but the wording( as of Oct. 2nd 2010) seems to say that the XYZ affair lasted from 1797 to 1800( the date of the Quasi War) as opposed to 1797. I may be way off, so may someone please either correct or confirm my dates? I need to know this information. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.186.39 (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

King???
The affair took place in 1797, four years after the execution of Louis XVI. France was governed by the Directoire exécutif in 1797, the article needs a major correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsjanhere (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite. I've removed the summary for now. Y-M4N (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The name of the affair
Since the name of the article is the "XYZ affair", it would be nice if it established how it got that name. Did Adams mention it in a speech or in an article in periodical, and if so where and when and under what circumstances? Did the public know XYZ referred to the French diplomats, and if so, and if this was the purpose, how so? And when exactly did it become known as the XYZ affair? Questions I feel are basic to a basic understanding of what is indeed a very interesting incident in early US (and Revolutionaty French) history. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * good question. when Congress demanded the documents, Adams coded the French diplomats as X, Y and Z. Rjensen (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added material explaining how and when it got the name.  Magic ♪piano 13:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on XYZ Affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100814013746/http://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/XYZ to http://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/XYZ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of Eric Swalwell Op-Ed
This section is to discuss the relevance and applicability of the section discussing the editorial of Representative Eric Swalwell (D-California 15) which compares the Trump-Ukraine Scandal to the XYZ affair. The question is whether the section contributed by AnomieBOT on January 4, 2020 should be included or excluded (on at least temporary basis) and whether it should remain in its own section or be integrated into an existing section. In the interest of fairness, this unregistered editor shall not contribute to the discussion, but has reverted the contribution. I suggest the following considerations for inclusion and exclusion.
 * in the interest of inclusion:


 * As a US Representative, Eric Swalwell's opinion is inherently notable.
 * As a US Representative, Eric's Swalwell's opinion does not constitute trivia.
 * Additional articles, editorials, op-eds, and statements by US politicians and pundits may make the section more relevant under WP:Notability.
 * in the interest of exclusion:

204.195.10.150 (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Eric Swalwell is a primary contributor to the WP:List of controversial issues re: Donald Trump.
 * The Swalwell editorial is unlikely to have long term WP:Notability as of January 4, 2020.
 * The Swalwell editorial is currently unlikely to generate response and will remain an miscellaneous information as it pertains to the XYZ affair, though it may be relevant in the Trump-Ukraine Scandal article see Manual of Style/Trivia sections.
 * Rep. Swalwell is a vocal proponent of the ultimately debunked Links between Trump associates and Russian officials and therefore his opinion may be excludable under WP:NOT or under WP:Reliable sources.
 * Wikipedia does not require that author of cited RS be friends of the subject--it is quite normal and expected for sharp critics  of a president  to publish sharp attacks.  The Stalwell argument was covered in the major media and specialized RS such as https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/476801-swalwell-pens-fiery-op-ed-comparing-trump-impeachment-to-xyz  The Hill Jan. 4, 2020. ] Predicting the long term notability -- how does one do that??? by totally guessing the future. Did Swalwell make errors on previous statements? maybe--but that does not disqualify a person. Are the errors in THIS statement--none have been reported.So let's keep it for now since it proves that XYZ Affair can indeed make headlines in 2020. Rjensen (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please wait for discussion before re-reversion.204.195.10.150 (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User 204.195.10.150 is entirely new to Wikipedia --this deletion of a major section is his first edit ever--and its rules of behavior. His proposal has received no support and is based on non existent "rules" which he invented. Rjensen (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rjensen has a history of impropriety in editing and the attempted personal attacks in lieu of sound arguments are unbecoming. The concern with "long term" notability was whether the op-ed would be relevant 24 hours after it was published.  It generated a re-report in The Hill, which typically reports on the publication of any op-eds by prominent politicians (The Hill is primarily dedicated to covering Congressmen)), but nothing else.  It has not received attention on cable news.  It has not attracted commentary by other politicians.  Beyond this page and the website where it was originally published, it appears to have already been forgotten after a week.  The section fails under WP:Notability.  Because the OP is fundamentally unrelated to the events of the XYZ Affair, the section fails under WP:Trivia.  Furthermore, the formatting of the section is unmistakably in the format of disallowed WP:POPCULTURE sections.  Errors in Representative Swalwell's are not the reason his contribution to WP:List of controversial issues re: Donald Trump is relevant to this discussion.  They are relevant because Trump related controversies have a tendency to contaminate Wikipedia with many issues disallowed under WP:NOT.  Already due to Rjensen's unilateral decision to subvert discussion and the building of consensus, User:2A00:4802:A8A:8F00:6118:A0FD:14BF:D537 had to make substantive changes to bring the section into compliance with WP:Promotion.  These are the rules of Wikipedia.  Unless a substantial number of editors support inclusion in spite of these issues or additional events make the op-ed more relevant, the section should be excluded.  I am concerned Rjensen may take matters into his own hands again and this page may require a request under WP:LOCKPAGE 204.195.10.150 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Lots of arrogance here from newbie 204.195.10.150 -- he made his very first of 6 edits on Wikipedia on Jan 5 2020 -- all on XYZ/Swalwell issue.   Rjensen (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 204.195.10.150 (talk) Stop and retract your personal attacks on . You are way out of line WP:NPA.


 * I support Rjensen reverting your deletion per WP:BRD. You should have considered WP:CAUTIOUS and discussed before making a major deletion. You chose to be bold (which is fine) - You were properly reverted by Rjenson - now is the time for discussion. If you want to make this deletion, you will need to create WP:CON properly without WP:CAN. If you decide to continue in this manner it will violate WP:EW.  // Timothy::  talk  00:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Rjensen made repeated personal attacks (also note his comments to his edits), I merely noted this was unbecoming. Rjensen alleged Wikipedia guidelines are "non existent 'rules,'" I merely noted he has a history of disregarding Wikipedia guidelines. I have made no personal attacks and so can't retract any.  I was not aware WP:BRD could be interpreted in such a way as to support inclusion of inappropriate trivia added recently, but since there is a greater than one contribution to the discussion that the trivia should remain for the time being, I support it remaining for the time being.  If nothing else, the section may serve as clickbait.
 * Thank you for your contribution to the metadiscussion. If you would kindly contribute to the main discussion here, it would help to begin the process of building consensus.  I would especially invite unregistered User:Michael E Nolan, the original author of the section in question to discuss their opinion on why the section should be included. 204.195.10.150 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As the writer of the deleted section, I found this relevant for inclusion because 1) Congressman Swalwell's comments are notable, and 2) numerous articles about historical events include mention of later references to the original event. I would like to add that the Swalwell comments were carried by a major television network, not some obscure blog. Personally I doubt they will make any difference to the impeachment issue, which I why I did not include them on any pages related to that.Michael E Nolan (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)