From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Unnecessary repetitions, incoherence, conflicting/lacking definitions, informal language, info that applies to pirates in general rather than just buccaneers (and absence of clear explanations of how buccaneers differed from other pirates). Also, lack of historical details - how and why were they put down by England and France, for one thing (the last bit requires an "expand" template, but it's not time for that yet). -- 15:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It also needs sources. I or some crewmates will be working on this, and I'm listing the article on Wikipedia:WikiProject Piracy as needing work. --Pirate Dan 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


the beginning is just incoherant rambling. a buccaneer is a pirate in the carribean.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:43, June 2, 2007

External Links[edit]

What is The Tarry Buccaneer? Is this some sort of poem? I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong in the External Links. I am going to take that off unless someone disagrees and cares to explain what it is. Deflagro 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Minor cean-up[edit]

I have taken out the flag which is generally (and probably erroneously) attributed to Rackham. There is absolutely no available evidence for any use of "Jolly Roger" flags before 1700 - which is after the usually accepted cut-off date for the buccaneer period. And Rackham was nearly twenty years later. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boulet rouge (talkcontribs) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal work[edit]

I'd like to see a cite for the assertion that they turned to "legal work", but I've always had my suspicions about lawyers! Pustelnik (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Bucanero Beer[edit]

One of the official Cuban beers:

Could be worth a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


I've reduced the amount of content added in this edit which almost immediately created fairly significant WP:WEIGHT issues. There's nothing wrong with adding new sources and new information, but almost-doubling the size of the article with claims from a single source (which are actually refuted by other cited sources) is a problem. Also a problem is attributing views to "historians and x" when only "x" has made such a claim. Buccaneering (as noted in the article) was not an "English" tradition and many of the most famous buccaneers were Dutch and French so English-centric research and commentary places too much emphasis on an Anglo-centric view. Anyway, I've cut the information down a bit and will fix the various mispellings and referencing issues (it's "B. R. Burg", not Berg, for example). Stalwart111 01:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I have reduced it further having now found specific instances of both Benerson Little and Peter Lamborn Wilson criticising even the basic fundamentals of Burg's "research". It can be included as a relevant claim or contention but it would not seem to be supported either by facts or by other historians of note. Stalwart111 02:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am troubled by the "Lifestyle" section. After two enticing but brief paragraphs, here is a whole sub-section, bigger than the rest, on "Debates about sexuality". Now in all my previous crossings and recrossings of anything about pirates I had not seen that this was an issue, but what do I know? So I read on, to discover that a "gay historian" (is that pertinent?) has concluded, "controversially", that "pirates engaged almost exclusively in homosexual activity." Ah, that's odd, as I thought that what pirates engaged in "almost exclusively" was piracy. From this section I got the feeling that the subject here is "Homosexuals of the Caribbean", whom, as a side-line on the very few occasions they weren't screwing each other, engaged in a bit of piracy. But wait, I forgot, this section isn't about sexuality, it's about debates about sexuality. More particularly, it seems to be more about criticism (hardly a debate) about one historian's view on a aspect of "pirate" life that doesn't rate mention even in the much larger article on piracy, and isn't shown to have any special or unusual significance in this topic. This section is greatly reduced from its original form (see this edit), but it is still overblown, and I propose to remove it completely. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)