Talk:Treaty of Tripoli

I don't think the article is neutral

that though the English phrase is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government, a number of the founders described America as a Christian nation,[7] Reference 7: Barton, David (2000), Treaty of Tripoli Wall Builders.

is not neutral. It is a US right-wing christian website, and the author (Barton) is very probably biased towards Christian revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.230.163 (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Probably biased" is an understatement. David Barton is a historical revisionist who is notorious for relentlessly pushing a Christian evangelical narrative of American history which has been completely rejected by real historians - his only supporters are conservative politicians and fundamentalist religious leaders. He is a crank who has no place in an article about American history, except maybe in a subsection explicitly labeling his opinions as revisionist. Og of Bashan (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Then please change the article, and remove Barton from it. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to do it myself.--345Kai (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you telling me that only left-wing atheists websites are permissible sources for Wikipedia? Barton sources his material. You can check his references. I don't agree with the weight he places in every instance, but he has the best sources for the material of anyone I've seen. He gets a lot of criticism because people don't like what he says, not because he is factually incorrect. Pooua (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There were plenty of sincerely Christian individuals in the U.S. in the last quarter of the 18th-century. However, most of the famous and influential founding fathers had strong deist tendencies, and the only real form of "Christian nation" that they knew about -- i.e. an official state-established church -- was exactly what they were trying to get away from on the federal level. AnonMoos (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is obviously not neutral. As a historian of the era, the Founder's own writings, the writings of the day, as well as acts as President (Madison's Vetoes, especially), all stating the reasons that this Nation is secular, this article appears written by David Barton or one of his minions. The only apparent writings supporting the merger of Church and State were the writings of the British Loyalists who supported the structure of Clerical Magistrates that Jefferson (and others) more than adequately railed against (See Jefferson, "Notes on Religion", October 1776, for an example). 63.152.95.176 (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• This article is being subject to a barrage of edits meant to show the US is a 'Christian nation' primarily by Npellegrino who has a long list of Evangelical edits and a habit of marking them as minor edits. Are these edits relevant to the Treaty of Tripoli? I have found that the citations he has added do not support much of what has been added by him. But I do not have the time and familiarity to investigate each and every edit, nor can I say convulsively that all are unsupported. Analognipple (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed most of his edits as obviously slanted. That editor posted a comment on my talk page in response. He claims to not believe the country was founded as a Christian nation but then claims to be a professor of history and states that the consensus of mainstream academia (minus one "lone wolf") all agree that the country was founded as a Christian nation. DreamGuy (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Barton developments

Since David Barton has been discussed a number of times on this page, it's fair to mention that his reputation has recently suffered a kind of semi-meltdown -- he's received severe criticism from some Christian historical scholars, and his most recent book, "The Jefferson Lies", was withdrawn by Thomas Nelson who "lost confidence in its accuracy".[1] He still has his supporters, but they appear to be mainly among hard-line political activists and religious fringe figures, rather than mainstream evangelicals (and certainly not historians)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

still not neutral

Let's start with the entire first paragraph under the section on section 11: an un-cited, un-supported statement that no "academic" historian has ever suggested it to be important either way in the argument. But then goes on to make contradictory statements about historians making very specific opinions about it, secular and religious, arguing that it doesn't support the idea of a secular nation.

Then there's the reference that supports that, a frank lambert book. The same book is listed three times in the references, and is one of only two references supporting this entire argument. And both references are by authors who are regularly panned by all of those "academic" historians, along with their work and neutrality. Neither him nor John Fea are considered neutral sources, or even legitimate historians by many people.

The article is also absurdly repetitive, particularly on the idea that the English and Arabic sections of section 11 are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.214.5 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC) -- 18:15, 1 September 2013‎ 107.200.214.5

I'm not sure what specific changes you're proposing to make to the article. Also, such English-Arabic discrepancies are a point of controversy, with some insisting that the section was not part of the "real" treaty, while others point out that any discrepancies don't change the fact that the Congress and President acted on a treaty text which included the section. AnonMoos (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

For WP policy on handling the situation where reliable sources differ, see WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference #14 (Fea, John (2011). Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: An Historical Introduction. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 143–145.) John Fea is a Professor of History at Messiah College, a Christian college in PA. Is it appropriate to use references from him? --Analognipple (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, he's a respected scholar with a PhD in American History (Stony Brook University, 1999); his work has been vetted by leading scholarly journals and university presses. Rjensen (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is John Fae "respected?" His work seems to be about Christian apologetics and not history. He is noted at Right Wing Watch. I apologize for my poor English. Thank you! 97.95.184.22 (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A number of scholars express respect for him here. I haven't checked their individual backgrounds or researched the institutions with which they are affiliated. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"A number of scholars express respect for him here."

I don't think publishers' "blurb" with bookseller endorsements from (mainly) other christians is a credible measure of status. The link you provided is nothing more than publisher's advertising.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The assertion in support of which pages 143-145 of the Fea book is cited reads, "and that many Founding Fathers and newspapers described America as a Christian nation during the early Republic." Pages 143 and 144 appear to support that assertion as re founding father, giving plenty of specifics. Page 145 isn't previewable; I don't know whether or not it provides support as re newspapers. If other prominent RSs disagree with Fea's viewpoint on how founding fathers and newspapers described America, their viewpoints should be presented and supported by citing those sources per WP:DUE ("Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."). Exclusion of RSs which strongly present particular viewpoints is not NPOV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

We are looking at a unanimous official government statement that was never reversed. In the American Constitution Congress & the president make foreign policy. Here they unanimously agreed on national policy. That's a very serious statement not a casual comment by a lone individual. 02:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep main point in lede

the main point of the article --the only reason the treaty is of interest--must be in the lede--that is the statement:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Rjensen (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The treaty certainly has historical significance in its own right, so I'm not sure I agree with that. It seems better as a separate paragraph in the body. I've left it in the lede, but put it after the factual/historical description. I also simplified and consolidated it to remove redundancy. If it remains in the lede, I question if the fact that the phrase does not appear in the Arabic version should also be added. John2510 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Discrepency Between Arabic and English Versions

This sentence that is in the current version of the article does not make sense to me:

"Some religious spokesmen such as David Barton claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty..."

Whether or not the U.S. Senate ratified the Treaty in English has no bearing on the fact that Article 11 does not exist in the original Arabic (the Treaty was originally written in Arabic, then translated into other languages, including English, en route to the U.S. for ratification by the Senate). It appears to me that the sentence is attempting to negate an unwritten argument, that argument probably being along the lines that Article 11 wasn't ratified by the U.S. Senate. In any event, the sentence as written expresses a POV that should not exist in the article.

Yes it does. Because it is the English version that the United States considers law along with all of the English version's clauses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.4.155 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the Arabic version does not contain Article 11, Frank Lambert's comment that Article 11 was intended to re-assure the Muslims in Tripoli is odd. How was an article that they never saw supposed to re-assure them? I find it extremely odd that a professor of history at a leading university would make such a claim. Pooua (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Another odd sentence in the current article:

"The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been questioned, and it has been disputed whether Article 11 in the English version of the treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate corresponds to anything of the same purport in the Arabic version."

Well, no. This isn't a matter of questioning and disputing. We can look at the Arabic and the English versions and see that they are not the same. Article 11 does not exist in the Arabic original. That isn't a matter of conjecture, dispute or question; it is a statement of fact. The question is, how and when did Article 11 get into the English translation? Pooua (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is a matter of questioning and dispute. The Arabic version in existence in the 1930s is clearly not the same, but we don't even know for sure which Arabic document was laid before the Senate in 1797, much less what all the copies actually signed at Tripoli and Algiers said. Saying "the only copy now in existence is not the same" is quite different from saying "all of the copies signed in 1797 differ"; that latter is unproven and now unprovable. Biblioteqa (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This part of the article needs a major rewrite, as it's very confusing. DreamGuy (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Assumptions re private thoughts of ratifiers of the treaty

Re this edit and the one preceding it, let's not cast this as an unsupported statement of editorial opinion. There's an analysis at Lambert, Frank (2006). The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. Princeton University Press. pp. 240. ISBN 978-0-691-12602-9. by what looks to be a pretty authoritative source which could be used as support for an assertion about this. Perhaps other similarly authoritative analyses exist which could/should be included per WP:DUE exist. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Senate & president Adams expressed an official position. The nation officially went on record in accordance with the Constitutional procedures. Rjensen (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing otherwise. This is covered on pp.239-241 of the book mentioned above, including a quote of President Adams' statement. I mistakenly linked to p.24 of the book above -- I meant to link to p.240; I've modified that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

yes we're agreed. I changed the text to make it clearer. Rjensen (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

How many U.S. Constitution signers?

The original Constitution of the United States was signed by representatives of the several states. How many of those signing were in the Senate at the time of its unanimous ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli just ten years later? (Here's a list of the Constitution's signers: U.S. Constitution - Signatories) --71.174.167.176 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Constitution was ratified by elected conventions in each of the 13 states. Thousands of men attended these conventions and participated in the formal ratification of the Constitution. Several states demanded a Bill of Rights, but no one demanded a statement of allegiance to Christianity. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The response above from Rjensen should be noted. However, to find the answer to the specific question asked, compare Senate members listed in the 5th United States Congress article with the signatories to the Constitution. See also WP:TPG and WP:HW Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

71.174.167.176 -- Abraham Lincoln's famous Cooper Union speech compiled some interesting statistics about signers of the Constitution who voted for certain slavery-related measures passed by Congress during the same era (though not for the Treaty of Tripoli itself, of course); you might find the text of the Cooper Union speech interesting... AnonMoos (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

John Eidsmoe and "historians"

There was a sentence saying the secular and religious historians have noted that, and then John Eidsmoe was used as a source.

Eidsmoe is not a historian. He is an attorney from Alabama with various religious degrees (ministry, divinity, biblical studies, etc.) from religious schools. As such he cannot be used as a source for what historians say.

It's also worth noting that that the sentence originally said both secular and religious historians argued the side, but 2 of the 3 were clearly religious only. It seems like it was written that way to make them sound more secular than they were.

Now it's one of two. The only one who can be in any way called secular is Frank Lambert. His opinions were taking up about half of the section. His is certainly a valid opinion, reliably sourced to an expert on the topic, but he's not the only or most important author. Lacking balancing text from other authors, I trimmed some of the section to avoid an WP:UNDUE weight problem. We should really include one or more named sources with differing opinions to give more balanced coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Further reading

I removed the Further reading section from the article. All it consisted of was one book, and that book was from an extremely minor religious press advocating a specific view. If we are going to include a list of books we recommend to our readers, it needs to have a much more wide variety of views included. Having only that one has the end result of telling people this author's opinion is the only one who counts.

Furthermore, any article that already has a good list of reliable sources does not need a Further reading section. If a book is worth referring to, it should be used as a source for the article itself. If it doesn't say anything comparable to what sources actually used in the article say, then it isn't worth pointing out to our readers. DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is by no means complete. It's not 10% complete on most diplomatic topics. Students who want more will come here to find further information & perspectives for their own class papers that the editors have not yet included. Rjensen (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have some suggestions re the Article 11 section. I think that these would be improvements, but I'm a bit gun-shy about the idea of boldly changing that section

• The first paragraph says in part, "Some religious spokesmen claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty.", citing [2] in support.

• The cited source does not provide support for the "Some [unnamed] religious spokesmen" assertion.
• The "despite unanimous ratification" assertion appears to me to be unnecessarily argumentative.
• I suggest replacing this text with "the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty.", supported by the currently-cited source.

• In the final sentence of the first paragraph, I suggest replacing the words "the phrase" with "Article 11".
• The first clause of that final sentence cites [3] in support, wherein it is argued not only that the Government is distinct from the People, but that the Founders crafted a secular State. The second clause, citing a different source, makes the point that many Founding Fathers and newspapers described America as a Christian nation during the early-Republic. Considering their cited supporting sources, those two clauses seem to me to be at odds with one another.

• The paragraph following the Article 11 quote starts out, "According to Frank Lambert, ...". Lambert is the source cited in support of the first clause of the final sentence of the initial paragraph. I suggest moving that material down and integrating it with the material there supported by citing Lambert.
• So as not to give the point in the second clause (which is somewhat at odds with Lambert) undue weight by leaving it in the initial paragraph, I suggest relocating it lower, following the Lambert material.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Will someone who understands treaty law explain whether dictum from a breached treaty with a now non-existent nation has any bearing on anything?

-- 208.68.128.90 (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Its current interest is not that, but the fact that some of the same people who wrote the U.S. Constitution had no problem with a declaration that the U.S. is "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" (which went through Congress without ascertainable dissent)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

variously in the Article 11 section

I've removed the word variously from a sentence reading, "Some religious spokesmen claim variously that—despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English—the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty."

Variously seems to have appeared in this September 2010 edit, which listed various (three, actually) claims in comma-delimited clauses. The current version of the article presents the claims in two separate sentences, and I've removed the word variously from the first of these separate sentences which only concerns itself with one claim. Perhaps an introductory sentence might be appropriate to explain that there are various claims prior to describing the claims separately. Perhaps such an introductory sentence is not needed. I'm no grammarian, so please do correct me as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In our history there is no word like "barbary", distorted info, the treaty was between just Ottomans and US

We've learned that this treaty between USA and Ottoman Empire, accept the fact, why you are distorting it? This is only foreign language (Turkish) treaty of your 200 years of history. And the only treaty in US history that accepted paying tax to a foreign country (Ottoman Empire). I couldn't believe when I saw the English version... --Karak1lc1k (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this new section to the bottom of the talk page, where it belongs. I've also reverted the associated edit to the article. Please treat this discussion as the "D" phase of WP:BRD. I'm no topical expert, and I hope that regular editors off this article who are more expert than I will sort this out. I do note "Naval Operations including diplomatic background from 1785 through 1801" (PDF), Naval Documents related to the United States War with the Barbary Powers : Volume I, Part 3 of 4, United States Government Printing Office, p. 394 which describes the treaty as, "the treaty of Peace and Amity concluded between said U S of America & the Regency of Tripoli by the intervention of the late Hassan Barshaw Dey of Algiers and under the immediate Guaranty of said Regency". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Karak1lc1k -- "Barbary" was a common English name for northwest Africa (originally inhabited mainly by Berbers) well into the 19th century. And various parts of Northwest Africa acknowledged nominal or quasi-nominal Ottoman suzerainty or overlordship at various times, but the treaty was not signed with the Ottoman empire, nor was it in Turkish. AnonMoos (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely signed with Ottoman Empire, also it was in Turkish, research it, learn it, and claim a thing. Simple. Karak1lc1k (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sources indicate otherwise. AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Who signed the treaty in Tripoli?

Isn't that suppose to be Yusuf Karamanli? There is ambiguity when the article says "in its place is a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli." I'm assuming Yusuf is the pasha, the same guy that starts the war against America with the Thomas Jefferson. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Language of the treaty

A Turkish IP 85.102.182.16 again changed the language to Ottoman Turkish [4], despite the Yale footnote stating: "Original in Arabic. Submitted to the Senate May 29, 1797." [5]

I suggest keep an eye on this since this is not the first time the that change has been made. --Pudeo' 04:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Treaty of Tripoli. 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/20070916113305/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215092040/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1805t.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1805t.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"Official" treaty?

The section "Signing and Ratification" contains the following sentence: "The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797."

There's no immediate citation for the proposition that the "official" treaty was the Arabic text. At the end of the paragraph, citation 8 refers to a Yale website, which so far as I can tell also does not say that the "official" treaty was the Arabic text.

I therefore suggest that "official" is the wrong word there. Worse, it evinces a bias by insinuating that the English text of the treaty signed by John Adams, ratified by the Senate, and maintained as the Treaty of Tripoli in US archives for almost the entire duration of the American republic, is somehow "unofficial." This in turn undermining the legitimacy of Article 11.

I therefore urge that the word "official" be replaced with "original," unless an authoritative source is produced indicating that the Arabic text, which was not signed by John Adams, and was not ratified by the Senate, is nonetheless the "official" version.

Thanks!

Bug1333 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

New article and proposed move

This edit caught my eye and resulted in this subsequent edit by me, after which I went on to WP:BOLDly create the new Treaty of Tripoli (1805) article. That leads to the need for additional work which I have not done -- moving this article to Treaty of Tripoli (1796), creating a disambiguation page for the two articles, reviewing links in other articles targeting the current article name, and making adjustments there as needed. Barring objection, I intend to start work on the rest of that in a few days.

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think a hatnote would be more appropriate given the relative notoriety of the 1796 treaty compared to the 1805 one. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That sounds good to me; I wasn't relishing the prospect of reviewing all tose links in other articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the hatnote. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Original treaty is in Arabic

I don't know why, but users keep changing the article to say the original treaty is in Turkish. The Yale Law School source clearly states that it's in Arabic, and anyone who can read either Arabic or Ottoman Turkish can see from the scan that it's in Arabic. إيان (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Some, such as User:Karak1lc1k above, seem to have the strong opinion that because the treaty was signed with a nominal Ottoman vassal, it must be in Turkish, but that's clearly not the case. AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hunnic Enjoyer إيان (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The original treaty was in Ottoman Turkish and it is not Arabic Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to verify this claim? As it is, all of the source say it is in Arabic. older ≠ wiser 21:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

yes i have a reliable source and it is the treaty itself, i've read it Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is WP:Original research. Are there WP:Reliable sources that supports this? older ≠ wiser 22:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

-https://alpturkkaya.av.tr/hukuk/kamu-hukuku/trablus-antlasmasi/

-Hunter Miller, ed. (1931), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America.

-https://antlasmalar.com/trablus-antlasmasi/ Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, well the first is self-published and not really a high quality source. The second has many inaccuracies (other than just the question of language) and the overall site appears to be oriented towards promoting a vision of Turkish greatness. I'd find that hard to accept as a reliable source, especially when numerous respected published scholars state that the articles are in Arabic. older ≠ wiser 22:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Still when there is the treaty itself, why are we even debating about this topic, with a little research you can clearly understand that the original treaty was in Ottoman Turkish. Hunnic Enjoyer (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right and all of the published reliable sources are wrong. I very much doubt it. older ≠ wiser 01:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:DUE. Quoting from there: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." (noting there: "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.") Hunnic Enjoyer, please cite reliable sources from the research you mentioned. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Citation 4 - Punctuation is important

The sentence attributed to Citation 4 (Article 11) is incomplete with respect to the intended thought of the document and hints strongly of cherry picking. The sentence here begins with "The (government)... and ends with "religion." where as the actual Article 11 begins with "AS the government..." and pauses with a semicolon after "religion" and continues on to give the complete the thought of article 11. The article is one entire sentence and reads "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. 74.97.73.84 (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Transcription of treaty text

@Bkonrad: Can we cite the source of the treaty’s text used for the transcription that’s provided. And remove the image which doesn’t say the same thing? Having two versions of the text is confusing, and doesn’t seem necessary.       —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. older ≠ wiser 09:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant lies/trivia about foreign translations

So this article claims that "modern" translations of the arabaic text "confirm" a certain phrase doesn't appear.

Lets pretebd for a moment thats not a lie by Christian activists. Did 100% of the founding fathers speak Arabic? Did they discus the law in Arabic, writing it in Arabic, pass it in Arabic, then translate it into English later? No? Then what relevance is it what a later translation does or does not include?

Furthermore, the "modern" translation is from the age of flappers and eugenics and the great depression. So even that is a lie.

I assume true modern and accurate translations say otherwise, hence relying on one from before the discovery of Pluto. But regardless, its a completely irrelevant factoid. Im going to delete it unless there is good reason to save irrelevant trivia in the main article. Skintigh (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There are copies of the Arabic text constituting a part of the treaty record. This text simply does not exist in any of the extant copies, and nothing even remotely close that might have been mistranslated is present either. And it is hardly an irrelevant detail given the volume of discussions what that text has produced. older != wiser 15:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Skintigh -- Your assumption that anything more than 100 years old is completely worthless is not part of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines referred to when writing articles. AnonMoos (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You have changed the original article

Your original post was a copy of the treaty, with comments from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. You are trying to please the religious right, not inform the truth. You have posted opinion… whose? Not those of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. I feel cheated. I support you, and I think I will stop doing so. 2600:8803:8700:E9:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)