Jump to content

Talk:Libertatia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fictional?

[edit]

Why is this in the fictional countries category? It's just conjecture that it never existed, and there's more evidence for the fact than against it. --67.171.102.73 10:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, additionally the links provided as "references" in the opening section for examples of doubt regarding the matter take you to what is essentially little better than a blog. The dubious quality of the linked site is even less than that of wikipedia.
The "fictional countries" catagory is exactly where this belongs. The anon poster above wrote "It's just conjecture that it never existed"...In fact, it is only conjectural that it did exist. The article indicates an existence of "about 25 years". If this were true, there would surely be extant archaeological evidence, but no mention is made of this...I believe this shold reman as fictional unless/until better documentation can be had. Engr105th (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plausible argument for the bible too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.9.182 (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian?

[edit]

If we take the original usage of the world libertarian then we can definatly say that the anarchists there were libertarian. But the word libertarian in this page links to American Libertarianism, which is actually classical liberalism. If these pirates operated collectivly, that means that their philosophy was libertarian socialist, not classical liberal or American Libertarian. Shouldn't that be changed to reflect this? -69.123.9.255 18:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Ungovernable Force 18:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. Well, I think the term Libertarian(American or otherwise) should be extracted all together. They obviously had a political philosophy closely related to many forms of anarchism in that they opposed statism and advocated communal living, but to call them anarcho-socialist would be assuming their collective views were in complete accord with the philosophy. This commune with its moral objection against greed is a great example for advocating many forms of anarchism, communal living, and anti-statism, but doesn't denote any specific political philosophy which didn't exist at the time.

I agree about removing the libertarian term as well, likely the best bet would be to leave any attempts at labels out of this article. Theoretical anarchism is completely different from actual anarchism; likely it was a mix and blending of a numerous amount of ideologies. Placing a modern label on a historical (or fictional) society is little better than an attempt to attach one's own beliefs to what can be construed as an "utopian society". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.215.81 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

New message - There are serious contradictions to the author's argument in Vol. II of the General History of Pyrates published in 1728. The author - the only source for the whole story - specifically states that Misson wanted to set up a representative democracy to make just laws. This is not the usual definition of "anarchism"... It should also be noted that the same text says Misson died on the way back to America (or at least his ship sank with all hands) and that Thomas Tew died later. This gives a firm date since Tew is known to have died c.1696. The General History was first attributed to Defoe in the 1930s - this has been challenged by recent authors including Marcus Rediker. However the author was, he had some very interesting and advanced ideas for his time - and probably a vivid imagination. Not signed on in English - Tiercelin1852 on Wikipedia France.

Yes, Misson dying before Tew gives us a firm date. Unfortunately the Life of Captain Misson contains other firm dates - his naval career before becoming a pirate clearly takes place some twelve years AFTER Tew's death, as he is said to have been present at actions which took place in 1707-08. I suspect that this inconsistency was introduced deliberately to show that the story was fictional. The Life is the only evidence - there's no archaeology to back it up, no earlier references, and later references all appear to derive from the Life. Every other life in the General History not only describes known persons but has actually come to look MORE accurate as more evidence has come tp light: the author was clearly very knowledgeable: but there is absolutely nothing which corroborates this story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.160.36 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Misson

[edit]

Maybe I'm incorrect, but to me this sentence implies that there has been a previous mention of Misson, but there isn't. When you start a sentence referring to someone by their last name, it comes across as odd when the reader is not yet familiar with the person. That's just me. Also, the article calls him "Misson" with one "i" the first time and "Mission" another.

"Misson was French, born in Provence, and it was while in Rome on leave from the French warship Victoire that he lost his faith, disgusted by the decadence of the Papal Court. In Rome he ran into Caraccioli - a "lewd Priest" who over the course of long voyages with little to do but talk, gradually converted Misson and a sizeable portion of the rest of the crew to his way of thinking:"
-kookala —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.95.35 (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In French surname "Mission" doesn't exist, only "Misson".
Captain Misson was French, born in Provence. In France is known as Olivier Misson. References:
I don't believe any of these would meet the standards for reliable sources. Even if they were reliable, they would need to be added to the article in order to source your claim. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RepublicanJacobite, you dont like French ?

References to Uncharted 4

[edit]

Not sure how to do it, but someone needs to revert this article to a former version and lock it. Lots of changes based on the game were made, and I imagine they are all apocryphal.

"Libertalia" vs "Libertatia"

[edit]

The main introduction and all primary sources quoted refer to it as "Libertalia", but the parentheses, general text of the article, and URL refer to it as "Libertatia". This should probably be standardized, either by changing all instances of -tatia to -talia in the article (and keeping -tatia in parentheses), or -tatia should be the first word of the article and -talia should be in parentheses. Since the quoted sources refer to it as -talia, I am in favor of the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.214.228.39 (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~I changed it, since the first line in the page says "Libertalia". Erobinson55 (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title should be "Libertalia". I've been researching this. It is called "Libertalia" in the original source book where the name first appeared: "The History of the Pyrates". It is called Libertalia in the other references I've looked at (so far: "Under the black flag", and "Pirate Enlightenment: The Real Libertalia"). I can't find an original source where it is called "Libertatia" and there's no citation given for this spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.136.7 (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anticapitalist?

[edit]

A quote by the historian Marcus Rediker refers to the pirates as anti-capitalist. Given the fact that they lived during the late 17th ct where European economies were Mercantilist, and that the eventual birth of Capitalist philosophy, as a critique of Mercantilism, was still another century away, that statement seems incorrect. How could they be anticapitalist if the principles of Capitalism hadn't even been formulated yet? It is more likely they were anti-Mercantilist.
If nobody has a valid argument against, I will cut the first sentence from that quote. 191.114.54.136 (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

edit: According to Marcus Rediker's WP article he seems to be a Marxist. That might explain the situation since Marxists tend to conflate Mercantilism and Capitalism. 191.114.54.136 (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's own article on the history of capitalism dates the origins of the concept to various eras, between the 14th century (collapse of feudalism) and early 17 century (rise of stock companies such as the Dutch West India Company), or to other periods. There seems to be no consensus. As Rediker is a respected and generally well-regarded historian of Golden Age piracy (despite his seeing Marxist leanings in everything), removing the quote seems like OR. If you have a definitive reliable source that counters Rediker's quote, please add it, or at least footnote Rediker's quote to make clear that by "capitalist" he probably means "mercantilist."TheLastBrunnenG (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That article seems to be quite biased too. It already begins by assuming that "...fully-fledged capitalism is generally thought to have emerged [...] in the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries" without providing sources and clearly puts Mercantilism and even Colonialism as "Varieties of Capitalism", without any sources either. It even lumps in the simple idea of Mass Production as a variety of Capitalism. As if Socialist or other economies didn't mass produce anything...
It also states, under Historiography, that "much of the work on the history of capitalism has been broadly Marxist". And nowhere in the whole article is there even a single definition provided as to what the article considers as Capitalism. Concepts should be defined as clearly as possible before working with them. I thought it as obvious that the idea of capitalism was born with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
Isn't WP supposed to be neutral instead of favouring the Marxist point of view, even if they are "reputable Marxists"? What can one do? I did leave a note though, I hope it's adecuate. 191.114.30.9 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That article is on the History of Capitalism. For its definition of Capitalism, see the relevant article (linked in the header of the History of... article). The History Of article itself has over 100 notes and references; articles generally don't cite sources in the article header, but there are plenty of sources and references cited in the body of the article. If the article states "much of the work on the history of capitalism has been broadly Marxist", that doesn't make the article Marxist-slanted, especially if it really is true that "much of the work on the history of capitalism has been broadly Marxist." But I'm no economist, I'm here for the pirates, so if you have sources to add, by all means, go for it!TheLastBrunnenG (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leader?

[edit]

"a purported anarchist colony ... under the leadership" - if it was real anarchy, there could not been a leader. By definition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.70.44.176 (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-

Not only that, but it could not have been an anarchist society considering that all pirates had laws (stated in their articles of agreement) which they followed and enforced. Clearly, some of the information in this article makes no sense.

Thibeinn (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed

[edit]

I placed some CN tags in the article as several statements are entirely unsourced. I also think at least one source (brethrencoast.com) is of dubious reliability. There is also an overuse of a primary source (A General History of the Pyrates). Pavlor (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation from A General History of the Pyrates

[edit]

I don't see any mention of Libertalia or Libertatia in the online versions of A General History of the Pyrates (1724). Could anyone pick the correct quote where this place is mentioned first ? The older passage seems only to be in a book from 1825, a century later (found with Google Books). Thank you. Damouns (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got it: it was in the second volume. Link to the Gutemberg project transcription: [1]. Damouns (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second citation error?

[edit]

The 2nd citation lists Daniel Defoe as the author of the referenced work, yet the wikipedia on the book clearly states he is unlikely to have written it. This note should be fixed. 172.102.183.128 (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion over Mythical Status

[edit]

It's true that the fact that it was a republic is doubted by scholars however is it doubted that pirates were located in Madagascar? There seems to be that while its a myth that they established a "socialist republic" there seems to be a truth regarding Europeans regarding it as a quasi state. The source is:

  • Thomson, Janice E. (1969). Mercenaries, Pirates nd Sovereigns. New York: Reinehart and Winston. ISBN 9780691086583.

Chefs-kiss (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertatia&oldid=1211100168"