Talk:Quasi-War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Added a Title to Further Reading

I added Frederick Leiner's book Millions for Defense: The Subscription Warships of 1798 to the Further Reading list. I just finished the book tonight, and I thought it covered this aspect of the Quasi War quite well, with a few minor exceptions. Bschulte 01:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Page Remodel

I have changed the logistics outlay for the US Navy's ships involved to reflect a much more accurate representation. Likewise, I added all names with their corresponding rating. I intend to add much more in the near future to make this article much more in the way of substantive. All information for this update was taken from Wikipedia as well as "The US Navy: An Illustrated History" by Nathan Miller. Auror 02:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ships involved in this war

any ideas where the number of US ships involved in this war (in the box) came from? I have included every ship in Category:Quasi-War American ships where the ship article said it was involved in the Quasi-War and there are a whole lot more than this box says. Thanks Hmains 02:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] incomplete article

actually this article is very incomplete. Reading the actions of the ships and people in Category:Quasi-War people and Category:Quasi-War American ships gives a much more complete picture of the war. Thanks Hmains 02:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

[edit] Info Source

For those looking to add, there is some information in: The River Plate Voyages, 1798-1800 from The American Historical Review, Vol. 23, No. 4. (Jul., 1918), pp. 816-826. If you have JSTOR it is available there. Aboutmovies 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Information

The article does not lose a single word about the US's refusal of paying back war debts to France on the spurios [sic] grounds the contracts were done with monarchial France and so no duty existed to pay back to revolutionary France.

[edit] Combatants

Does Great Britain count, since it operated as a de facto ally of America at this stage? Tourskin 00:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Beginning of Hostilities etc.

The previous edit stated: "The Quasi-War started on July 7, 1798, when Congress rescinded treaties with France. United States Naval squadrons then sought out and attacked the French privateers. Deeply infuriated with the U.S for their actions against France, the French Naval Commander Jean de Beaune counterattacked with the destruction of the USS Virginia. This ultimately led to a rise of national pride in the U.S as they sought to avenge those who had died in that battle. The U.S then retaliated with the killing of 25 French sailors aboard one of the French frigates that ran in between Quebec and the Country of France which led to the belief that it was the work of a Pirate Crew by the name of Genive."

In my modest but comprehensive library on the Quasi War, none make any mention of the above actions whatsoever. There is no Jean de Beaune and I know there was no USS Virginia on the Navy rolls at that time. It's clear that this was a case of clever vandalism that only someone intimately familiar with the conflict could have caught. I've also cleared up the date bit, especially as the whole "this was the beginning of the Quasi War" stick is quite nebuluous considering it was a war never declared. Any questions etc. drop me a note on my talk page. Auror 01:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


UPDATE - The edit which added the wrong information was done on 2 November by 204.185.19.191 who was going around vandalizing other pages. I wonder how many people have read that now thinking it was all true... Auror 01:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit I almost fell for it. Damn user. loser. Hah! A loser user on the loose. Tourskin 05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of NPOV tag

I removed the NPOV tag because there was no blatant discussion of it here. All that was mentioned was a small comment on the edit page ("piracy is not neutral!") while Wikimedia Standards clearly say that any disputes over neutrality need to be discussed on the TALK PAGE, and given fair time to be argued over.

T0m0thyxcore 10:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't post the NPOV tag, but I've just read the article and agree that it is indeed very much non-neutral. For example, the sentance "However, even as a prisoner, the clever young American officer managed to serve his country" is inappopriate and obviously from a pro-American viewpoint. Furthermore there is nothing from the French perspective and the tone of the article is not neutral. The background section is not so bad other than the fact that it only presents the information from the American side. This is somewhat understandable as most of the writers here will only have access to Anglo-American sources. The Naval Engagements section, however, is blantatly non-neutral and needs to be improved. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 14:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
As a young french scholar, I can say only one thing : from the french POV, this notion of "quasi-war" between USA and France is simply unknown! Who says "french bashing"?--78.113.116.64 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As a young american scholar, I can say only one thing : from the american POV, this notion of "quasi-war" between France and the USA is simply unknown! Who says "american-bashing"?
The qualifications for notability do not include you (or anyone else) having personally heard of something. I haven't heard of it either, but that really doesn't matter; clearly, it did happen. "Quasi-war" is apparently an established name, regardless of whether or not it sounds funny. 70.112.248.146 03:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altered "Result" box

I have altered the result box from "End of French Revolutionary piracy" to "End of effective French revolutionary privateer attacks on American shipping". "Piracy" is both innacurate and inherently POV. As the rest of the article makes clear, the French ships were operating under letters of Marque from the French revolutionary government. While (as the article also makes clear, as does the linked article on Privateering) the line between Privateer and Pirate could and often was crossed, the two are not the same. A pirate was (and is) a criminal, a sea thief subject to capture and punishment, trial under criminal law (and at the time, capital punishment) by the ships and forces of any nation. Privateering was an internationally recognized form of warfare, privateers (as also noted) being subject to rules surrounding prisoners of war. To describe Privateering as piracy is anachronistic, and when applied to only 1 side in a conflict, POV. 12.215.65.5 17:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Ian

That is indeed a much better way of phrasing it. Cheers. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 19:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)