Talk:Action of 1 August 1801

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAction of 1 August 1801 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 1, 2010.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2010Good article nomineeListed
May 2, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
May 25, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 1, 2011, and August 1, 2015.
Current status: Featured article

perfidiously? seriously?[edit]

I do not agree this article is NPOV.

Why are the tripolitans branded "perfidious"? Not only are there no rules in war; the Americans used "flag tricks" first!

I do not see any significant difference in the ways the two different sides disingenuously used their flags that merits labelling one side "perfidious" (complete with a wholly inappropriate link that details the Geneva Convention prohibition that came into effect a full 176 years later) and not the other?

Since the article is heavily visible I'm going to hold off removing this POV language. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't understand what perdify is in a legal sense? It has always been considered perdify to fiegn surrender in order to gain advantage over another combatant. It is a well established fact that the Tripolitans in this engagement resorted to perdify in order to try to carry the day. Every single source that goes into detail mentions it. It is not acceptable to fight under a flag of surrender or another countries flag, the established practice was that using a false flag was acceptable up to the point of engagement itself. Once fighting was to begin, the combatants were required to raise their national colors.XavierGreen (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of masts[edit]

The current text says this about Tripoli: "a lateen-rigged polacca with two masts". But looking at the pictures, I doubt that Tripoli would have been a ship with two masts only. I assume that in Bainbridge's drawing this ship is the one to the right: it has two masts still standing, and one displaced. In this painting the ship to the right, which is being chased by the other, clearly has three masts. - Xbspiro (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we cannot trust the illustrations, and should clearly state the problems in the captions. In the painting of the fight, one ship looks like a frigate and the other like a western schooner. The chasing vessel in the other painting does not look like a schooner (never seen a schooner with studding sails), but I'm less sure about that one. I think the paintings are by people who knew what ships looked like, but did not know what type of ships were involved. --LPfi (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Action of 1 August 1801. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Action_of_1_August_1801&oldid=1204498454"