![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
~I changed it, since the first line in the page says "Libertalia". Erobinson55 ( talk) 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
-
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
~I changed it, since the first line in the page says "Libertalia". Erobinson55 ( talk) 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
-
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: