This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Privateer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know enough about this to edit the article... but a privateer is also the name for a vessel owned by a privateer, I think. fabiform | talk 16:19, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
While the U.S. Constitution does still authorise privateering, developments in international law have rendered this obsolete, and under international law a privateer would be a pirate now. -- Daniel C. Boyer 17:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
All I needed 2 know wuz what a privateer iz, so thank u! :) (happy face) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.136.85 ( talk) 01:34, 4 November 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't the use of the word "privateer" referring to motorsports be in a separate article? (e.g. "privateer (motorsports)") Rick 19:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why is there such a big mention of American history here? American privateers were certainly not the biggest part of privateering, if you are to have that there should also be a big chunk on 16th century privateering and other times. -- Josquius 20:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A privateer operates under a letter_of_marque, a pirate does not. the distinction is fine, but it's there. Privateers are/were legitimate, pirates are just criminals. -- Bob the Cannibal 23:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I dont belive that Edward Teach has ever been proven to have been a privateer. It has only been said that he may have been one before he became a famous pirate But most of his background is unknown even his true name. Edward Teach is just one of the names he used when he was on land.
I just think it's wrong to count him as a privateer when he never had a letter of marque as far as history tells and there is no record from his belived privateering past. One should seperate history from speculations. Especially with all the proposterous stories already circulating about famous pirates and privateers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.170.70 ( talk) 15:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Include "compare and contrast" to state terrorism/ state sponsored terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Prior to the development of international law among European nations,
The United States Constitution authorized the U.S. Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal, as did the Confederate Constitution. The Confederates used privateers during the American Civil War. Britain also used them against the U.S. after the American Revolutionary War.[1]
Authourized is in the psat tense. Does the constitution no longer allow congress to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.170.45 ( talk) 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
There is already an excellent entry about Jean Lafitte, an American hero who helped Andrew Jackson repel the British at the Battle of New Orleans. Suggest adding Lafitte to the list of notable Privateers with a link.
Also, it would be interesting to note that today the University of New Orleans uses the "Privateers" as its mascot (see it at [1]) and a costume mascot alligator dressed as a privateer is known as "Lafitte." Just looked and there's also a graphic on the wiki page for UNO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.53.20 ( talk) 20:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This article lacks something very important which is how and when nations stopped recognising privateering as something legitimate. I believe it was probably towards the end of the 19th century. GS3 11:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As I recollect, Britain and France agreed not to use privateers during the Crimean War, and an agreement was signed by various governments not long after which sought to end the practice. Other governments signed up with the passage of time.
Aodhdubh 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
In this section, reference is made to Horatio Hornblower as the creation of author C.S. Forester. However, Hornblower was quite real, and his descendants still hold the title. 68.90.232.9 ( talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The 'in fiction' section is pretty scant, but I would argue that it doesn't belong in the article. There are probably thousands of references to privateers in books, film, and TV. Few are mentioned here, and the ones present seem pretty arbitrary. I was going to remove it, but I wanted to air it here first.
Also, the 'cultural influence' section needs to be expanded in order to stay. If sports team names are examples of "cultural influence," articles from "Beaver" to "Mudhen" would warrant a 'cultural influence' section. --
MattMauler (
talk)
12:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
From the definition, a Corsair seems to be a specific (French) sort of privateer. The "other language" links are a bit confusing a the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.42.205 ( talk) 09:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The article incorrectly mentions "HMS Hannah". This is an incorrect name as the Hannah was not a naval vessel and thus never "His Majesty's Ship". I have thus removed the HMS designation. Rif Winfield ( talk) 10:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A cite to Geoffrey Footner's book Tidewater Triumph (about the origins of the topsail schooner) should accompany the illustration of the topsail schooner Pride of Baltimore. I am considering creating a page for Revolutionary War privateer Jeremiah Yellott, mentioned in Footners book, and will link to this interesting and well written article when I can. ElijahBosley ( talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been making some piecemeal adjustments but really, the subject of privateering is of considerable historical significance and requires more scope, substance and documenting citation than this. Rather than do a lot of revision and expansion to this article which would be discourteous to its well intentioned author, I will begin piecing together another more thorough page, perhaps under the heading American Privateers. FrederickFolger ( talk) 13:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Concur with the compare and contrast to terrorism. Also recommend removing the statement "From a 21st century point of view, privateering was a form of state-sanctioned piracy, as opposed to just state-sanctioned mass murder." The distinctions amoung privateering, piracy and terrorism (at least to be consistent with the Wikipedia articles on those topics) are ones of specificity. Additionally, the timbre of this statement drips of personal opinion.
Piracy is considered to be so heinous because it is an act of "hostis humani generis", an assault on all humankind. Privateering differs from piracy and state-sponsored terrorism in that it is declared by a nation and specifically targeted against other nations within bounds. If CountryX issued letters of marque and reprisal to privateers against commercial shipping of CountryY, commercial shippers of CountryZ would not expect to be detained by those privateers. Nor would other members of CountryY not engaged in commercial shipping (providers of humanitarian aid, research vessels, etc.). Also, although many nations currently have legal statements renouncing their use of privateering, in theory, those nations could not detain a privateer comissioned by a nation who has not (at least not on the authority of they themselves having renounced the act of privateering).
What distinguishes it from regular military action by a nation or the hiring or land-based mercenaries, is that the privateers are specifically authorized for immediate economic gain. In general, members of militaries and mercenaries are contracted and appointed under terms independent of the specific missions they later undertake.
Anyone object to adding those distinctions and removing the equation of privateering to piracy? June1969 ( talk) 16:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Today, July 22 2010, I edited the opening paragraphs, moving around phrases and sentences, deleting a handful of words, but not changing or deleting anything of significance, at least in my estimation. User:Huey45 reverted all my changes with the explanation "you removed a bit too much information there. Could just add your ideas to the rest?" I don't understand this. What did I remove that was "too much"? I didn't cut a single full sentence, though I moved sentences around and combined them. I cannot spot a single idea that I removed. Since I added no new information except an internal link to the piracy article (which I moved to a more prominent place since I suspect that many use the two terms pirate and privateer interchangeably), I can't add my "ideas to the rest". Huey45, can you explain what you mean by your comment? I stand by what I said when I made the edits: "Reorganized opening paragraphs hopefully to read better and add a link to the pirates entry. Hopefully no meaning was changed." And so I am utterly confused by the reversion. -- Bruce Hall ( talk) 12:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Why are only the UK & US talked off here? Don't the actions of the Barbary pirates count as privateering when they fought the US twice in Barbary wars, or throughout their grinding raids on European coastlines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.4.85 ( talk) 01:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hung?
No.
Hanged!
the terminology is Hanged.
Change it!
Thank you.
68.71.8.75 ( talk) 07:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
One aspect of this form of naval war still puzzles me though.
After WW1, the various naval powers, with vast resources at their potential disposal met at various conferences to discuss future naval construction.
The first line of the various agreements reads " Privateering is and remains abolished". So just what was it about privateering that made this the priority category of 20th century naval conference agreements? AT Kunene ( talk) 12:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Recently, I have seen a number of uses of the term "American War of 1812". This appears to be a term in American use only, rather than an internationally-accepted term. I think we ought to stick to the generally-accepted " War of 1812". Heavenlyblue ( talk) 21:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The reason it doesn't seem to happen anymore is it would be hard to compete with modern navies and their ships and technology, but do any government still issue letters of marque/privateering licenses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.107.168 ( talk) 13:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Privateer. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Privateer. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I updated/reorganised the introduction text to clarify some of the grammar, the difference between privateering and piracy, and that sovereigns or delegated authorities issued commissions. According to NAM Rodger's article (referenced here) there is a difference between "letters of marque" and commissions. Commissions are more generic so this is the term that should be used. I also took out the reference to mercenaries as I don't think it is relevant to the reader. CrushLily ( talk) 00:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I updated this section to emphasise that the commission is integral to differentiating a privateer from a pirate. I placed this in the context of the shift in piracy law away from treason to a crime against property that brought privateers more under the jurisdiction of their home sovereign/state. I also included a section on non-European forms of authorised sea-raiding as I believe it is important to emphasise this was a widespread and common practice among coastal people. I also reduced the reference to William Kidd as there is contention among historians on whether he was a pirate at all. -- CrushLily ( talk) 07:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Reorganised the England/British section to be less reflective of all privateering and more directed to the nation's use of it. -- CrushLily ( talk) 00:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't the historical fact of privateers operating out of Jersey be mentioned in this article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 09:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Privateer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't know enough about this to edit the article... but a privateer is also the name for a vessel owned by a privateer, I think. fabiform | talk 16:19, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
While the U.S. Constitution does still authorise privateering, developments in international law have rendered this obsolete, and under international law a privateer would be a pirate now. -- Daniel C. Boyer 17:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
All I needed 2 know wuz what a privateer iz, so thank u! :) (happy face) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.136.85 ( talk) 01:34, 4 November 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't the use of the word "privateer" referring to motorsports be in a separate article? (e.g. "privateer (motorsports)") Rick 19:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why is there such a big mention of American history here? American privateers were certainly not the biggest part of privateering, if you are to have that there should also be a big chunk on 16th century privateering and other times. -- Josquius 20:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A privateer operates under a letter_of_marque, a pirate does not. the distinction is fine, but it's there. Privateers are/were legitimate, pirates are just criminals. -- Bob the Cannibal 23:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I dont belive that Edward Teach has ever been proven to have been a privateer. It has only been said that he may have been one before he became a famous pirate But most of his background is unknown even his true name. Edward Teach is just one of the names he used when he was on land.
I just think it's wrong to count him as a privateer when he never had a letter of marque as far as history tells and there is no record from his belived privateering past. One should seperate history from speculations. Especially with all the proposterous stories already circulating about famous pirates and privateers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.170.70 ( talk) 15:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Include "compare and contrast" to state terrorism/ state sponsored terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Prior to the development of international law among European nations,
The United States Constitution authorized the U.S. Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal, as did the Confederate Constitution. The Confederates used privateers during the American Civil War. Britain also used them against the U.S. after the American Revolutionary War.[1]
Authourized is in the psat tense. Does the constitution no longer allow congress to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.170.45 ( talk) 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
There is already an excellent entry about Jean Lafitte, an American hero who helped Andrew Jackson repel the British at the Battle of New Orleans. Suggest adding Lafitte to the list of notable Privateers with a link.
Also, it would be interesting to note that today the University of New Orleans uses the "Privateers" as its mascot (see it at [1]) and a costume mascot alligator dressed as a privateer is known as "Lafitte." Just looked and there's also a graphic on the wiki page for UNO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.53.20 ( talk) 20:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This article lacks something very important which is how and when nations stopped recognising privateering as something legitimate. I believe it was probably towards the end of the 19th century. GS3 11:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As I recollect, Britain and France agreed not to use privateers during the Crimean War, and an agreement was signed by various governments not long after which sought to end the practice. Other governments signed up with the passage of time.
Aodhdubh 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
In this section, reference is made to Horatio Hornblower as the creation of author C.S. Forester. However, Hornblower was quite real, and his descendants still hold the title. 68.90.232.9 ( talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The 'in fiction' section is pretty scant, but I would argue that it doesn't belong in the article. There are probably thousands of references to privateers in books, film, and TV. Few are mentioned here, and the ones present seem pretty arbitrary. I was going to remove it, but I wanted to air it here first.
Also, the 'cultural influence' section needs to be expanded in order to stay. If sports team names are examples of "cultural influence," articles from "Beaver" to "Mudhen" would warrant a 'cultural influence' section. --
MattMauler (
talk)
12:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
From the definition, a Corsair seems to be a specific (French) sort of privateer. The "other language" links are a bit confusing a the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.42.205 ( talk) 09:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The article incorrectly mentions "HMS Hannah". This is an incorrect name as the Hannah was not a naval vessel and thus never "His Majesty's Ship". I have thus removed the HMS designation. Rif Winfield ( talk) 10:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
A cite to Geoffrey Footner's book Tidewater Triumph (about the origins of the topsail schooner) should accompany the illustration of the topsail schooner Pride of Baltimore. I am considering creating a page for Revolutionary War privateer Jeremiah Yellott, mentioned in Footners book, and will link to this interesting and well written article when I can. ElijahBosley ( talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been making some piecemeal adjustments but really, the subject of privateering is of considerable historical significance and requires more scope, substance and documenting citation than this. Rather than do a lot of revision and expansion to this article which would be discourteous to its well intentioned author, I will begin piecing together another more thorough page, perhaps under the heading American Privateers. FrederickFolger ( talk) 13:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Concur with the compare and contrast to terrorism. Also recommend removing the statement "From a 21st century point of view, privateering was a form of state-sanctioned piracy, as opposed to just state-sanctioned mass murder." The distinctions amoung privateering, piracy and terrorism (at least to be consistent with the Wikipedia articles on those topics) are ones of specificity. Additionally, the timbre of this statement drips of personal opinion.
Piracy is considered to be so heinous because it is an act of "hostis humani generis", an assault on all humankind. Privateering differs from piracy and state-sponsored terrorism in that it is declared by a nation and specifically targeted against other nations within bounds. If CountryX issued letters of marque and reprisal to privateers against commercial shipping of CountryY, commercial shippers of CountryZ would not expect to be detained by those privateers. Nor would other members of CountryY not engaged in commercial shipping (providers of humanitarian aid, research vessels, etc.). Also, although many nations currently have legal statements renouncing their use of privateering, in theory, those nations could not detain a privateer comissioned by a nation who has not (at least not on the authority of they themselves having renounced the act of privateering).
What distinguishes it from regular military action by a nation or the hiring or land-based mercenaries, is that the privateers are specifically authorized for immediate economic gain. In general, members of militaries and mercenaries are contracted and appointed under terms independent of the specific missions they later undertake.
Anyone object to adding those distinctions and removing the equation of privateering to piracy? June1969 ( talk) 16:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Today, July 22 2010, I edited the opening paragraphs, moving around phrases and sentences, deleting a handful of words, but not changing or deleting anything of significance, at least in my estimation. User:Huey45 reverted all my changes with the explanation "you removed a bit too much information there. Could just add your ideas to the rest?" I don't understand this. What did I remove that was "too much"? I didn't cut a single full sentence, though I moved sentences around and combined them. I cannot spot a single idea that I removed. Since I added no new information except an internal link to the piracy article (which I moved to a more prominent place since I suspect that many use the two terms pirate and privateer interchangeably), I can't add my "ideas to the rest". Huey45, can you explain what you mean by your comment? I stand by what I said when I made the edits: "Reorganized opening paragraphs hopefully to read better and add a link to the pirates entry. Hopefully no meaning was changed." And so I am utterly confused by the reversion. -- Bruce Hall ( talk) 12:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Why are only the UK & US talked off here? Don't the actions of the Barbary pirates count as privateering when they fought the US twice in Barbary wars, or throughout their grinding raids on European coastlines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.4.85 ( talk) 01:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Hung?
No.
Hanged!
the terminology is Hanged.
Change it!
Thank you.
68.71.8.75 ( talk) 07:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
One aspect of this form of naval war still puzzles me though.
After WW1, the various naval powers, with vast resources at their potential disposal met at various conferences to discuss future naval construction.
The first line of the various agreements reads " Privateering is and remains abolished". So just what was it about privateering that made this the priority category of 20th century naval conference agreements? AT Kunene ( talk) 12:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Recently, I have seen a number of uses of the term "American War of 1812". This appears to be a term in American use only, rather than an internationally-accepted term. I think we ought to stick to the generally-accepted " War of 1812". Heavenlyblue ( talk) 21:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The reason it doesn't seem to happen anymore is it would be hard to compete with modern navies and their ships and technology, but do any government still issue letters of marque/privateering licenses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.107.168 ( talk) 13:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Privateer. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Privateer. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I updated/reorganised the introduction text to clarify some of the grammar, the difference between privateering and piracy, and that sovereigns or delegated authorities issued commissions. According to NAM Rodger's article (referenced here) there is a difference between "letters of marque" and commissions. Commissions are more generic so this is the term that should be used. I also took out the reference to mercenaries as I don't think it is relevant to the reader. CrushLily ( talk) 00:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I updated this section to emphasise that the commission is integral to differentiating a privateer from a pirate. I placed this in the context of the shift in piracy law away from treason to a crime against property that brought privateers more under the jurisdiction of their home sovereign/state. I also included a section on non-European forms of authorised sea-raiding as I believe it is important to emphasise this was a widespread and common practice among coastal people. I also reduced the reference to William Kidd as there is contention among historians on whether he was a pirate at all. -- CrushLily ( talk) 07:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Reorganised the England/British section to be less reflective of all privateering and more directed to the nation's use of it. -- CrushLily ( talk) 00:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't the historical fact of privateers operating out of Jersey be mentioned in this article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 09:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)