Talk:Second Barbary War

message: :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)
thread_title: October 2005

message: 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)
thread_title: Warbox

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

text: But this issue should really be raise here. Thank you. Tourskin 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Victory" in the first War? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Decisive American victory and de facto British and Dutch victory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bombardment of Algiers

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge of ''Decatur's Squadron in the Second Barbary War''

message: *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)
thread_title: SUPPORT the merge

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge complete? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Location of Decatur's Squadron 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How exactly was it a bluff? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Second Barbary War. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070818050355/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1815t.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1815t.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515222634/http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl940.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl940.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008081409/http://tripolibook.com/ to http://tripolibook.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220038/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While studying the history of Algeria, I found myself reading the current article. My attention fell upon the statement “At the prompting of Britain, the Barbary pirates returned to their practice of attacking American merchant vessels…”  I thought “the prompting of Britain” needed a specific citation, so I began digging.
The statement in the Wikipedia article is based on a sentence of the book by Joshua E London, the reference given for the paragraph. However, what it actually says on page 235 is:
“The favourable favourable disposition Algiers exhibited towards the United States changed in July 1812.
“The Dey had grown annoyed because some of the American naval and military stores have been arriving behind schedule. With further promptings from the Prince Regent of Great Britain, the Dey sent his cruisers out looking for American ships and after accepting additional bribes from Tobías Lear, expelled him from the Regency.”
This is not the same as “at the prompting of Britain“. The Prince Regent was not an absolute monarch (and in fact was not king at all). His “promptings“ are not the same as policy of the British government, though I have no doubt that in the middle of a world war Britain would have welcomed any allies.
I have been unable to verify London’s statement via an Internet search. That doesn’t mean it is untrue. However, at the beginning of his bibliography, London says:
“As this book was written for a general audience rather than for academics, specialists, or naval and military scholars, I have refrained from using footnotes or otherwise littering the text with source citations and references. Academics and scholars, or those who are interested in further study of the subject, may want to know something of my sources.” 
He then lists 10 books which were most useful to him. 
In this case, some “litter“ would be welcome. Its absence means is that short of reading, or at least searching a digitized version (if available) of every one of them, I cannot find his source. Again this doesn’t mean it is untrue. (I am presuming good faith authorship.) But my Internet search already didn’t turn up any support for what the book says.
Not wanting to act rashly, I sought more information about Joshua London and his book. He is not a historian and this is apparently his only book. That does not mean he is unqualified but neither did it increase my confidence in the statement. Since I haven’t read the book, I rely on three short reviews on the Goodreads website:
* “It opened my eyes to the long-term nature of the Islamic terrorist campaign against the United States and the western world.”
* “Not too scholarly, but went into sufficient detail where warranted.”
* “Good book on the Barbary Wars. gives you enough desert adventure, exploding ships, and, yes, even swashbuckling to get you through the lulls and hand wringing back in Washington, without completely abandoning those important facets of the story.”
Hmmm.
I have reviewed the talk entries for this article. Other editors several years ago commented on inaccuracy, bias, and lack of clarity in the article. Even so, those opinions are several years old. In a quick scan of the history, I couldn’t find anything related to the phrase that caught my eye.
To summarize, then, the statement in the Wikipedia article is inaccurate, and the source statement in the book lacks support. I think this is sufficient evidence to make a decision, so on the basis of the Wikipedia encouragement to “be bold“, I have deleted the phrase. I welcome anyone to provide a supporting reference. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prompting by Britain