This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFrance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of thehistory of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
None of the Sources provided back the suggested revised wording of "American victory" in the Infobox.
(1)Source One; Wikipedia guidelines preclude "Tactical victory", because it's so subjective - it is either "Victory" or "Inconclusive". Since the war was fought to prevent Americanmerchant ship losses, focusing solely on ship to ship duels means using the wrong parameters.
(2)Source Two; The US Navy's Orientation Department (ie Welcome to your new career), commenting in 1977 on what amounts to its foundation story, is hardly a neutral source.
(3)Source Three refers only to "American victories at sea" ie ship to ship duels, which are covered in the article. However, this source does not claims thewar ended in an American victory.
Elsewhere on this TP, others have claimed a French victory, and I can produce several other sources that do the same - in fact, that was the original result before I edited it.
I think it's misleading, because wars rarely end in a clear result, but I can live with "Indecisive" if it resolves this discussion.Robinvp11 (talk)22:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, even though the US Navy defeated a large number of privateers, at the end of the day hundreds and hundreds of American merchant ships were captured throughout the course of the war. The vast majority of combat actions in the war were actually between American armed merchant vessels and French privateers and aside from a small handful of notable exceptions, the French won the overwhelming majority of those engagements. I think indecisive is the most accurate thing to put.XavierGreen (talk)16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question on why isn't Spain listed as a Combatant/Belligerent in the Quasi War.
Yes, because Belligerent is a defined legal term (and it's not the same as Combatant), which (normally, but the US is fairly unique in rarely doing so) requires a formal declaration of war. One simple way to define this is to look at the treaty which ends the war - Spain is not included. Minor actions like this one were common between states, even when they were officially at peace.
Having written most of the article, I have not found any historian who argues Spain is a Belligerent, so you need to produce a Source that does so (NOT the same as producing Sources for the battle, which is not in question).Robinvp11 (talk)10:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree--the basic reason is that the government in Madrid never considered itself in conflict with US; likewise Washington did not consider itself in conflict w Spain, regardless of one small action at one remote fort that the governments did not know about until it was over.Rjensen (talk)10:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I concede to your points.RjensenRobinvp11 However I do think that we should add in the article itself that the USA attacked Spain at one point. If not in the info box then in the article itself. What do you think?Historyguy1138 (talk)21:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The US attack was an unauthorized decision made by the local commander and never part of US-Spain relations. It was a small scale incident without any impact on any relationship.Rjensen (talk)02:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
.jpg)
.svg)
