Talk:Piracy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Piet Hein

Piet Hein was a famous Dutch privateer. ((main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Hein_(Netherlands) )) he captured the Spanish treasure fleet in the battle of Bay of Matanzas. this was a great blow to the spanish economy because the treasure fleet was full of gold

i do hope you include him at the main page because he is very imporatant and famous to the Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.168.193 (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Illegal fishing

Piracy or no? 213.67.163.232 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The disclaimer "NOT BY GOVERNMENTS!"

Isn't that a bit of historical rejectionism of the past? So what if a historian of an old empire called Piracy "raiding". It's still piracy in the modern sense of the word. --94.71.93.204 (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What you refer to is called privateering and is already mentioned in the lede. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 18:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

deletion of Famous historical pirates/privateers

This section/list was voted to be removed, I am curious why it was added back in. Oddling (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Value of Pieces of Eight/ Shillings etc.

I was thinking that it may be wise to include a little bit about the value of Pieces of Eight/ Shillings and Pounds at the time... For instance, If you gave someone a spanish dollar would they use that like someone would use $270 today? Perhaps we should include what one could buy with currency at the time, so as to better reflect unto people what the spoils of piracy were really like, and how currencies have changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khruishi (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Captain Mission mention

In concerns to this passage: "The most famous pirate utopia is that of Captain Misson and his pirate crew, who allegedly founded the free colony of Libertatia in northern Madagascar in the late 17th century. In 1694, it was destroyed in a surprise attack by the island natives."

Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article that Mission is a fictional character? The way it is worded now makes it sound like it was real. It doesn't even suggest that there is controversy to the issue like in the Liberatia article.

-Davidfictum (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What Are Pirates?

Pirates are thieves. They just steal on water not land. Pirates will attack a ship to steal its treasures and get rich. Most pirates are from Spain. As wierd as it sounds pirates are still roaming the water today! Talk:JonasStar 10:29 p.m., January 29,2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.195.43 (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You may want to credit the 3rd grade social studies text you copied this from, but thanks for the quaint summary of what you learned today. :) I'm just kidding - I know an educational text would never include that sweeping generalization about 'Spain'. Anyhow, was this something you were hoping to incorporate into the article?
--K10wnsta (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
That's silly. Most stories about pirates are based on the 16-18th century period, when the most prized capture would've been a Manila galleon or part of the Spanish treasure fleet sailing from the Spanish colonies to Spain. Assuredly, there have been pirates from Spain, but most were British, French and Dutch (Barbary corsairs are noteworthy if we stick to the Mediterraneum, though; Malaysian pirates were pretty active in east Asia as well). The British Crown even issued Letters of marque to the privateers! 89.129.34.5 (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Privateering in lead

The section on privateering comes rather late in the article. The word "privateer" is used several times before that section, without explaining the difference with "piracy". I think the easiest way to deal with this problem is to add a sentence to the lead of the article, and I have supplied an edit for that purpose.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, privateering is just state sponsored piracy. But piracy after all. 89.129.34.5 (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Pirates

Why does it wheneverI type in "pirate" "piracy" comes up? There should really be seperate article. Also having all the forms of puracy in one article is not very convinent.--209.80.246.30 (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes no sense because I am looking for an artical about Pirates but all I find is Piracy! I don't need to know what piracy is! We know otherwise we wouldn't be looking for it! *folds arms over chest in disgust* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.195.253 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism and piracy

Blowing up a ship with another ship (loaded with explosives) has little do with piracy, unless hijacking is included. Please clarify terrorist acts with their relevance to piracy (e.g. robbery, hijacking, boarding, etc.) before re-adding cases. falsedef 05:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, today the US Navy considers pirates and terrorists to be the same. Therefore, instances os maritime terrorism would fall under piracy. (Nick31091 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC))

I believe they can consider pirates to be terrorists, but terrorists aren't necessarily pirates. This article treats them differently (from navy.mil):
"Because piracy is frequent in Southeast Asia, terrorists have found it an attractive cover for maritime terrorism. Though the motives of pirates and terrorists are different (the former pursues economic gains while the latter advances political objectives),4 terrorists could adopt pirate tactics of stealing a ship, which they could then blow up or ram into another vessel or a port facility, to sow fear." -"MARITIME TERRORISM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA"
falsedef 04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The Navy does NOT consider pirates to be terrorists and has very different Rule of Engagement when dealing with each. The difficulty is that the distinction cannot be made until the motive of the perpetrator is known, which cannot be known until after an investigation of the act.PirateHunter 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the US Navy is not an omnipotent organisation and it whether or not it considers pirates to be terroists is frankly irrelevant (whichever side of argument it supports. My understanding of terrorism is an act perpertrated solely against non-military targets (though not always innocent) in the hope of creating intimidatory pressure on civillians to fold to demands. Piracy on the otherhand, though civillians are almost always the target, does not seem to fall under this definition as civillian vessels are only attacked for practical reasons (difficult to take on state-sponsored armed forces) rather than political.Also, Piracy is also almost always carried out for financial gain (though ofcourse, a connection could exist with this being used to fund terroism), rather than for political gain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.141.41 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism and piracy are two completely different pair of shoes. Terrorism aims to create terror and panic among a population, piracy aims at mere robbery. Pirates and terrorists often use similar tactics, since a terrorized population is more easily robbed and robbery is just another way to procure the necessary funds for terrorist acts. But this is not enough to merge the two concepts into one. The US Navy would better concentrate on their "war against piracy" on the seas (which is possible), instead of trying to wage "war on terror" in internet encyclopedies. In my eyes there is no such thing as "war on terror". You can wage war against people or against a territory, maybe even against a terrorizing faction, but not against terror. War can only create terror, never fight it. So "war on terror" is only a nonsense 21st century propaganda concept. Tryin' to apply it on 3000 years of piracy is simply stupid.--Borsanova (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

jurisdiction

Jurisdictional aspects About the difficult distinction between acts of piracy and terrorism

by: SUSANNE HAERPFER

(see also on the issue of Maritime security and International law: my Research Note published by Bits, Berlin Information Center for Transatlantic Security in March 2003, ISSN 1434-7687 IMO ILO ILO Die Weltschiffahrtsorganisation sucht Antworten auf den Terrorismus auf See, http://www.bits.de/frames/publibd.htm)

A new international tribunal for piracy trials is said to be considered. According to http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/08/un-considers-new-international-tribunal-for-piracy-trials.php published on August 26 th. Will it be an additional one? Or is the already existing International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (see http://www.itlos.org) to be extinguished? And if so for which reasons? Is the existing court not effective or – au contraire - too efficient? And if so from which perspective? Can one observe a struggle for power? At court and at High Seas, so goes the proverb, one´s fate is in gods hands or in the hands of those who have the might. Who is ruling the rules? What is an act of piracy? And how can it be distinguished from an arrest of a ship? Formally piracy is defined under article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) http://www.un.org/depts/los/index.htm, whereas the arrest of a ship is defined by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/imo99d6.pdf. But in practice, in real life it is sometimes as difficult to distinguish a terrorist from a freedom fighter as a pirate from an official. Who is allowed do define and execute this definition? Which constitutes an offence versus self defence? How many violations of environmental law have to occur befor a ship can be boarded opposed to captain or crew? And by whom? Will a Somali customs officer ever being regarded upon as the legitimate representative of a state carrying out his duty by taking a German ship into custody due to hazarding the coast line by negligent transport of pollutants? Some countries are automatically looked upon - for right or for wrong - as being synonyms for red tape and other forms of crime. As a free lance journalist I myself could observe at first hand while being on board of a freighter how a ship´s crew became victim of chicane by the so called Black Gang of Calcutta pressing for goods of value under the disguise of official duty officers. So I do know what ships´ crews talk about when hating red tape and other criminal acts in certain countries. (see e.g. Mit Fracht und Fusel über´n Pazifik, 19.6.1996, http://www.taz.de/digitaz/.archiv/suche?dos=1&demo=1&rev=1&mode=kompakt&tx=h%E4rpfer&x=0&y=0). On the one hand. On the other hand as investigative journalist I have been reporting e.g. about the danger emerging from radioactive consumer goods being imported without being controlled at all or just to a certain extent in some harbors such as Rotterdam. (see: Plusminus, Das Erste, ARD, 19.8.2008 + http://www.berufserkrankungen-siegerland.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&Itemid=154 and: 

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/28/28546/1.html

But this lack of control is – formally – in compliance with existing law. How to change that? Law can be developed, at least theoretically. Has the existing court revealed itself as a paper tiger? Against those who attacked ships as well as against actors trying to gain influence over justice? Will a new tribunal unify those isues which are interwoven but have been heard and decided upon by different courts at seperate locations up till now? Divide et impera has always been a means to sustain power instead of guaranteeing justice. Is this to be changed? Will it be possible for prosecutors at a tribunal to be established to really investigate in an independent manner? Will it be possible to really pursue all aspects related to a crime; that is not only those apparent at first sight? Will it be possible for those prosecutors to see the whole, the wider picture? To take into custody not only those with the “smoking gun” in their hands but those as well who gave the orders? Even if such an investigation would lead right into the office of a “well respected member of our society”? Will such an investigation being enabled and not stopped by the auspices of “endangering economy” but contrary securing security and stabilizing a literally healthy economy? For the sake of everybody; except for those betting on fast profit only. As the fish polluted by chemicals and radioactive substances endangers the life of a Somali fisher just very much the same way as it does to the white collar criminal who ordered to dump the waste; being only at first glance far away. But in reality the pollutant returns – to the restaurants´ table at home and at the vacation resort (see also my articles being re-published on the homepage of the Union of German Federal Police/Coast guard http://forum-bundespolizeigewerkschaft.de/Forum/topic.php?print=1&id=202&page=1&s=8a5f4955e41da5b343eb24b8de0a9f43)

So will such a new tribunal ensure that all these aspects will be looked into? What exactly was it to make somebody attack a cargo ship. Was it a criminal act? And if so for which reasons? Poverty? Profit? Self defence? Against what? Pollutants? Industrial fishing by conglomerates? Violating existing law? Executive forces from countries? Landlords? Who gave the order for which reasons to attack a ship? Will it be possible to investigate whether those arrested just look for lame excuses or whether they are telling the truth? About working conditions on board for example? As a reason for treason? Or the contrary. Will there be a witness of the crown? And if so, which crown for which reason? As in former times, as we know, piracy was ordered by High Court, king and crown. Have times really changed so much since then? Or does continuity exist as far as state driven piracy is concerned? Will it be possible to follow the paper trail? British experts in international piracy issues working for the Jane´s Publishing Group on security and defence matters, have always been indicating (to me) that there exists so called shipping intelligence, people carrying out investigation for the purpose to use the knowledge of type and location of cargo in order to order which ship to attack where and how. But never ever, at least to my knowledge, those responsible for piracy have been named as being behind it or taken into custody. (see e.g. my reporting on TV at “The File” = Die Akte aired on SAT.1, October, 5 th 1999). For which reasons? Did ever anybody dare to try it? And if so who with which consequence? Did an investigator really faced threats that forced him into poverty? Or did investigators not even start to try it? Or did they gain every information but didn´t achieve justice at courts leading to take into their own hands what to them was justice? And to those who don´t know about the development, who don´t know about history, such actions carried out would be either labelled as criminal, as piracy or – very seldom and this is remarkable – as the arrest of a ship. In contrast to statistics on piracy one wouldn´t find data on the arrest of ships on the homepage of the International Maritime Organization IMO (see http://IMO.org) enabling to compare the discriptions of how attacks occurred and thereby distinguishing one incident from the other. That might indicate that something must be “fishy” about the statistics on piracy; a phenomenon characteristic for statistics, but very tricky if politicians decide on military actions on the basis of figures that could look very different. Or to put it more bluntly – if for insurance reasons, it sould be opportune to present low figures of piracy, there will be a sudden rise in the criminal statistics. If for political reasons one needs a rise in piracy suddenly poverty striven robberies will appear as violent piracy and vice versa. The question of how to define and how to disguinguish directly relates to the issue who will be allowed to counter attacks. Or: the current debate whether it has to be military forces or police ones might be academic and obsolete if one only bears in mind that the category “arrest of ships” could be applied as well. And this could be the core task of police and coast guard forces. And suddenly statistics and jurisdictional captioness can turn out to be very vital; literally speaking when capturing the responsibles and funding.

Given this background, what does this tell us about the intention to create a new tribunal? Will it be just another institution? Just one more governmental body ensuring positions for notables without any factual influence? Or will it be the chance to start right from the scrap and unify every jurisdictial aspect that might come along with an act of piracy and which had been partialized artificially up till now? How many trials for titles of property in shipping industry could and should in reality be prosecuted as hostile take overs and as such as acts of white collar piracy? And how are business delinquency and capital crime linked together?

Does economic competition lead to order attacks on ships of competitors, or less profane, does competition among producers of cargo and/or their state of origin lead to acts of piracy on order? Could one trace back parts of so called globalization to mere racketeering?

Which investment in which areas had not been made out of positive climate for investors but out of mere force? And if so by whom? By private criminal gangs or state driven crime, as authors of Jane´s Defence Weekly indicated in the late 90´s; at least as far as state driven piracy is concerned (see also my article on Maritime security, published in http://www.security-and-peace.de; Nomos Publishing house 1/2008)

In 1999 capital crime was indeed “capital crime”, according to Janes, leading right into the capital of Beijing. And today? Would an international tribunal trace piracy, even it were to Washington, Berlin, Singapore or Kuala Lumpur? And if so, is this the real background of the discussion? We will face huge international trials that deal with matters of terrorism. As already today it has been difficult to differentiate between pirates and terrorists. At the latest since the damage of the Japanese tanker M. Star is suspected to be a terroristic attack according to a report published by the United Arab Emirates state news agency http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/sector/tankers/article342036.ece) attacks on ships have to be considered as potential terroristic acts versus “simple” piracy. Trials on terrorism imply possible revenge. Therefor it has to be asked whether behind the scenes this new tribunal for piracy purposes is debated in order to evade retaliation by involved parties. Germany has faced this experience befor when sentencing Iranians responsible for the terroristic attack on the Restaurant Mykonos in 1998 as well as those early investigations in the Al Kassar case that has lead to conviction at the United States District Court Southern District of New York in 2008 (see also: Manfred Morstein “Der Pate des Terrors”, Piper Publishing house Munich Zurich, 1989, and: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/nyregion/06arms.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin)

Given this history, means, encouraging a new trial can be a form of “bail out” in every respect of the word. It can be preventing direct threats; against the sovereignty of the state as well as against lives of citizens. It can secure the wrecked boat of the shipping industry by best practise of international jurisdiction. But it can also signify to leave the hit aircraft – but with passengers on board, knowing and what is worse, doing business with those masterminds of terror who are responsible for terroristic attacks – being carried out against airships as well as against conventional freighters at sea.

Classical countries of origin of piracy turn out to be entangled in the web of master minds of new forms of terror.

As not only Pulitzer prize winning author Lawrence Wright wrote 2006 in his award winning “The looming tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11”, Alfred A. Knopf publishing house, New York, terrorists carrying out the letal attacks met in Malaysia before in order to plan and prepare their deeds. Befor this, already in 2005 I held a lecture at the Academy of Command of the German military (Führungsakademie der Bundeswehr in Hamburg) asking why – at least officially – they are so focussed on Afghanistan wheras publically available information and my own journalistic experience from travel abroad in Southeast Asia would hint to go for Malaysia in order to unravel more background. Given this historical background one has to face future involvement as well. And one has to ask whether a new tribunal is being prepared to bring the real masterminds of the 911-attacks to justice and at the same time prosecute semi-piracy-semi-terroristic related attacks – without endangering not only the Court of the Law of the Seas in Hamburg but also the port of Hamburg itself. There is the saying, a perpetrator returns. Everything started in in the cities of shipping, everything started in the cities of Kualah Lumpur (KL) and Hamburg. Did it only start at a Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg or other offices as well? Is it classical architecture only that those involved were studying? Or critical infrastructure? What about harbour? What about the port of Hamburg? The road to 911 is the original title of the book of Lawrence Wright playing with words, using a term from shipping. Just as planes do also “taxi on ground”, ships stay “on road” when not being at route.

Again, the terror started in the cities of finance and shipping – KL, pronounced quay Al.

Or wharf el and ham-burg; the castle of all evil from an Islamistic perspective – the center where to obtain the food of the unpure, the non haram ham. The aim of the terror on 911 has not been achieved so far.

What if pirates and terrorists return home? To the countries of Sandokan and Störtebeker? What if they accomplish what they started simultaniously; e.g. in Hamburg and in the core centers of the raiders. In the city homes of Gordon Gekko, the safe havens and heavens of banking but of the “cities of porks” at the same time?

What if they attacked “Quai L”?

For this purpose using money originating from their foes and friends at the same time. Units are ideological neutral according to Western standards. So neutral that they will buy the weapon which will kill its producers, as Marxists would cynically consequently comment on. So what if future terrorists will be more “capitalistic” than their teachers? Carrying out the masterpiece of terror, so to say, their “habilitation” by demonstrating what that have learned at US and German universities; at law school and in everyday life: – to argue on one day for their client and the very next day turn against him – under the name of a subsidiary of course. Financed by and mingled with the backbone of economy: the shipping industry.

An attack on the ports of Hamburg and Malaysia financed by their victims.

The road to self destruction. A perpetuum mobile. Catch-22, the Islamistic way. Any action against the financial masterminds would reveal the involvement of so called serious businesmen, with or without knowledge of the grade of involvement. Any prosecution might collide with economic interests in the shipping business. Idleness as well. Is this also one of the reasons for a new tribunal? Are there indications that the existing one is biased? Has it to be ensured that piracy and terror at sea as well as the financial background for such acts will be prosecuted? Even if the economy of Hamburg or Germany should be envolved? Have the investigations about the economical history of 911 revealed that the Law of the Seas alone would not tackle the financial web behind neither piracy nor terrorism? Is it necessary to build up a parallel structure for securing justice even if the Court of Hamburg should be destroyed physically? Or have the judges been too independent from the perspective of envolved parties? Shall an additional international tribunal ensure that German white collar delinquents will be prosecuted even if they should be by coincidence neighbors of the existing established court? Or would the creation of such a new authority undermine the existing one and even help to evasive defence of non state actors? Which interests back the current consideration? Is it for the purpose of justice? Or for the sake of economical interests? In April one could read about US- investigators researching proclaimed violations against US-compliance laws by German subsidies; violating German laws themselves. (see: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/0,1518,druck-687352,00.html). Currently US investigators are involved in the case of potential criminal activities by HSH bankers http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/0,1518,714340,00.html

So apparently already today there are investigations carried out by Third state actors on German soil extending existing law. Will such a creation process of an institution affecting an already existing one as the International Tribunal of the Seas at Hamburg trigger off a debate about practice and malpractice, of competences and restrictions, of collision of national and international law, of the different perspectives of independency and interdependency in general? Affecting everybody. In that respect piracy would just function as an example in order to debate in public instead of internal committees what affects everybody´s lives: it is not only a seemingly far away Somali pirate who can be taken out of his home country and being sent to custody by an international body. It can be the employee of a shipping agency or any other office within Germany or the USA, who could be prosecuted by an international investigator and sent first to trial taking place in a Third, foreign country than his origin and then behind bars. Where to draw the line between not guilty and negligence? On Wednesday this week German television aired the political crime story “Takiye” about the facade of an Islamic cultural foundation and Islamic banking being misused by an unholy alliance of state security of at least two countries and criminals for personal profit and in the long run terroristic purposes (http://programm.ard.de/Homepage?sendung=281065978008179). Some employees knew, some suspected something while others didn´t have the slightest clue. The effect was the same. They lured humans into destruction – financially and physically. German intelligence officials gave away identities of “suspects” to officials from so called partner organizations from so called allies. With letal consequences for the suspects; again: suspects - not convicted criminals. Sounds familiar? Yes, similarities with real life events has been intentional. “Morale” of this story? Well, cultural foundations can have two faces, can serve for the good as well as for the evil. Same is true for international law and international organizations. They can guarantee cooperation on a global scale. For democracy and security of citizens. Or they can endanger what they were intended to protect. So as an employee better ask yourself whether what you are doing really is compliant or could be in reality serving for obstructive purposes. Many plead not guilty before. With international law and international tribunals one can face a trial charging supporting terrorism sooner than one can imagine. These are the possible consequences of what is called in such an abstract manner “the consideration of a creation of an international tribunal”. It has to be said clearly as that, in order to really know about what we might be talking about and vote for or opt against. Fact finding mission in the original sense of the word. A journalistic task. Because what might be a “delicate rendition” of people we call terrorists today, might be us tomorrow, under different or the very same conditions, when definitions turn against us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.184.130.126 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jfagan1900, 1 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Would like to suggest inclusion of a new Smithsonian Ocean Portal article on "The Pirate Who Collected Plants: William Dampier" in the "External Links" list. Thank you. Here is the link:

The Pirate Who Collected Plants - Smithsonian Ocean Portal

Jfagan1900 (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Declined This seems to me to be too specific of a link for such a general article, so adding it wouldn't be the noncontroversial edit for which this template is meant. If you still wish to see it included, feel free to begin a discussion in hopes of getting consensus for its inclusion. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Weapons?

could we get a page (or at least a sub-section) of weapons that were commonly used by pirates? I know there's the boarding axe, the blunderbuss, the cutlass, and the flint-lock pistol.--99.101.160.159 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this idea is that pirates' weapons were basically the same as other sailors' weapons for their time, so the information would be redundant. Rather than repeat the information in this article, I would suggest linking to Boarding (attack), which discusses boarding weapons through history, and Naval artillery in the age of sail. Pirate Dan (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I found that veary in... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh he is killing me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.163.153 (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Biographies of current pirates

Did I miss something? I see no information about current pirates in this article. Who are these people that are doing this? What is their background? Educated? Religious? Neither? Do they all choose this occupation? Are some dragged into it, for example as children? Mylittlezach (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Maritime terrorism should not redirect here

Maritime terrorism should not redirect to Piracy. This article is 100% about piracy and 0% about terrorism. The former is about attacks at or via sea "perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal." The latter is a reference to "robbery and criminal violence" for their own sake. There is a more formal differentiation here: Defining Maritime Terrorism and Piracy. If there are no objections, I'd like to develop Maritime terrorism into its own article to distinguish it from Piracy.—Biosketch (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S.-centric

There is a paragraph in the introduction that is U.S.-centric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.49.116 (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and it is irrelevant. The article is about pirates not penal legislative power of the USA Congress. If there are no objections, I will delete. But, I have deleted the following paragraph that says "some" say that terrorists should be called pirates for irrelevancy and silliness.1f2 (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan's support to piracy

The material evidence of support to Somali pirates by Pakistan has come to light. There need to be a section to describe the support of state to pirates and piracy.Flyingalbatross (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The source doesn't support that the state of Pakistan is involved in this.TMCk (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Rockbrasiliano.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rockbrasiliano.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion

I think there should be something about pirates and religion here. Pirates are very important to the religion of Pastafarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.156.99.101 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but pastafarians have no importants whatsoever in regards to pirats.TMCk (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Hendrick Lucifer.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hendrick Lucifer.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not an editor

I'm not an editor, but the lines "Many nations forbid ships to enter their territorial waters or ports if the crew of the ships are armed, in an effort to restrict possible piracy.[68] Shipping companies sometimes hire private armed security guards." are horribly incorrect. The [68] links to an article that doesn't say anything remotely like what its citing indicates. Also, the second sentence doesn't cite and should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.131.222 (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism

I see no real connection between piracy and terrorism. I read archive 2, and it seemed most people were in agreement. There was a vague reference to modern day pirates being referred to as terrorist... I am sure I can find a reference to connect any and all groups, religions, political parties and organizations to terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantion (talk • contribs) 03:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Caesar story

I would like to call attention to this passage:

Julius Caesar was kidnapped by Cilician pirates and held prisoner in the Dodecanese islet of Pharmacusa.[8] He maintained an attitude of superiority and good cheer throughout his captivity. When the pirates decided to demand a ransom of twenty talents of gold, Caesar is said to have insisted that he was worth at least fifty, and the pirates indeed raised the ransom to fifty talents. After the ransom was paid and Caesar was released, he raised a fleet, pursued and captured the pirates, and had them crucified.

Sounds like someone's been watching too much HBO. This is some serious Western self-love. Notice how only the meager fact at the beginning of the passage is sourced, and the sensational story is not. I can't even begin to imagine how inaccurate or completely fictional this story is. I'm giving it some notice - this will be deleted soon unless someone raises a worthy objection or fixes the material. Charles35 (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You know what, I'm actually going to just delete it right now. Please revert and discuss if you disagree. Charles35 (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Frequent" Piracy on the Danube River?

The second paragraph under "Modern Piracy" states:

"In recent years, shipping companies claimed that their vessels suffer from regular pirate attacks on the Serbian and Romanian stretches of the international Danube river, i.e. inside the European Union's territory, starting from at least 2011"

This claim does not seem to be backed by strong evidence. The sources cited are two Ukranian and one Croatian online newspapers, only one of which is in English, although this is an English Wikipedia article. The latest source cited was from January 2012. These websites do not appear to be particularly credible, and none is from the country where the attacks were said to occur. It seems that more evidence is needed to assert that pirate attacks on the Danube River are "frequent" compared to other waterways around the world. Unless better, English-language, sources can be found, this statement ought to be removed from the article. It does not seem that the Danube River should be placed next to the Strait of Malacca and the Gulf of Aden in a discussion on modern piracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.111.97 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

British and American individuals aided Chinese pirates against other westerners

http://books.google.com/books?id=nEgb15isFZkC&pg=PA107#v=onepage&q&f=false

Public domain (about a fight between Cantonese and Portuguese pirates)

http://books.google.com/books?id=918bAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA346#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=tMsNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA326#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=JAYMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT220#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=wOdwAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA129#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=wOdwAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA129#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 124

where his sympathies lay in reporting a clash between the Portuguese and locally based Cantonese pirates. A notorious Cantonese pirate had come over to the government three years before, had been given official rank, was employed by the intendant t control the local population, and practised every kind of extortion on his

http://books.google.com/books?id=G-MvAAAAMAAJ&q=where+his+sympathies+lay+in+reporting+a+clash+between+the+Portuguese+and+locally+based+Cantonese+pirates.+A+notorious+Cantonese+pirate+had+come+over+to+the+government+three+years+before,+had+been+given+official+rank,+was+employed+by&dq=where+his+sympathies+lay+in+reporting+a+clash+between+the+Portuguese+and+locally+based+Cantonese+pirates.+A+notorious+Cantonese+pirate+had+come+over+to+the+government+three+years+before,+had+been+given+official+rank,+was+employed+by&hl=en&sa=X&ei=C3BqUfOoJ_HV0gGg8IG4Cg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA

Page 128

Retribution overtook the Ningpo Portuguese in mid-1857. Forty to fifty were killed in an attack on them by the Cantonese ex-pirates, aided by ten to fifteen Europeans and Americans. Meadows considered the Cantonese almost respectable in comparison with the cowardly but ferocious Portuguese, and having ascertained that

http://books.google.com/books?id=G-MvAAAAMAAJ&q=Retribution+overtook#search_anchor

Title The China consuls: British consular officers, 1843-1943 Author P. D. Coates Edition 2, illustrated Publisher Oxford University Press, 1988 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Apr 4, 2007 Length 619 pages

16th century piracy

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fp418D8TDjIC&pg=PA353#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Eight Reales images

Hi all, PatHadley (talk) here. I'm the Wikipedian-in-Residence at York Museums Trust (Project pages). I've been working with the numismatics curators uploading images of coins from the Middleham Hoard. The hoard itself is getting an article through AFC here but I wondered whether the photos of the counterfeit Eight Reales (pieces of eight) coins from the hoard might be useful here or on other piracy articles? The three coins are here Category:Counterfeit coins of Philip IV of Spain. Although we've yet to find a source for this theory,; the curator YMT Coins suspects that these would have been produced in the Spanish colonies and then stolen from Spanish-American merchants by English Pirates, eventually getting to Yorkshire through Liverpool or Hull. Fascinating stuff! I hope they're useful. Feel free to get in touch with any queries or other ways we might help. Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/features/feature62615/
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection need

There is a lot of vandalism in the history of this article... Reverting vandalism... Those words...

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Piracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality

A section perhaps on piracy and homosexuality including mateolage? Contaldo80 (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This has a lot to do with queer history and is based on a fairly specific academic theory and reinterpretation of history that isn't widely accepted. This aspect could be interesting to elaborate on in a section like, say, "Culture and social structure", but how much research has actually been published about this? Is any of it about anything other than Caribbean pirates?
Peter Isotalo 15:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Quite a lot has been written on it actually - that's why its absence is decidedly odd. And I take exception to your claim that this is a "reinterpretation of history". It also isn't just "queer" history - it's history. We don't need to borrow it off. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
This is relatively new research fuelled by a fairly recent shift in views on sexuality. Reinterpretation is what historians do all the time. Queer history isn't a slur anymore than saying "cultural history" or "economic history", just more specific.
So how much research is there and how much of it is applicable to pirates in general?
Peter Isotalo 11:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
B.R.Burg, Professor of History at Arizona State University, wrote "Sodomy and the Pirate Tradition: English Sea Rovers in the Seventeenth-Century Caribbean" (published by the New York University Press) as far back as 1983. Hardly "relatively recent research". Contaldo80 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, sources are good. But you need actually read it as well. And 1983 is pretty recent by historical standards. I'm familiar with this issue from before, especially from Hans Turley's Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash so I looked up the following:
The overall picture described in them is that there's not much evidence of homosexuality. There are different argument on this, but consensus seems lacking, even among very recent writers. Turley is among the most quoted scholars on this topic, but even he writes that "the evidence for piratical sodomy is so sparse as to be almost nonexistent".[2] To the best of my knowledge, though, his book is primarily about perceptions more than how pirates actually lived.
The issue is clearly not decided, and even if it is, having a separate section called "Homosexuality" seems uncalled for per WP:UNDUE. It seems far more relevant to mention in the context of the perception of pirates and historiography.
Peter Isotalo 15:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Nicholas Rodger commented on this in Command of the Ocean with the following quote (p. 661):
"Various writers have recreated the buccaneers as Utopian socialists, homosexuals and other modern stereotypes, and they continue to inspire still more fertile imaginations of the film-makers."[3]
I naturally don't agree with Rodger that homosexuality can be reduced to a "modern stereotype". It smacks of conservatism, but I believe he has a very valid point when it comes to the tendency for modern writers to project a vast range of traits on pirates even when there's scant evidence of it. And, of course, all of it this extremely focused on the sources relating to the minority of European pirates that happened to operate in the Caribbean.
Peter Isotalo 16:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
We have a section about "democracy" among pirates, so a short reference to homosexuality would not violate WP:UNDUE. The references to homosexuals as a "modern stereotype" is frankly quite demeaning. I note that Rodger is a member of the Emmanuel Community - a conservative religious movement. I am keen to make a reference to mateolage as this article seems the right place to do it. I don't understand why there always has to be such resistance to covering homosexuality in wikipedia articles? I hear again and again arguments like "lack of evidence", "undue", "off-topic". Provided the material is up-to-date, correct and to the point. I'm happy to suggest some text here and see if we can agree something sensible but I'd like people to keep an open mind before closing off the options. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention of blocking additions, but I believe there are reasonable doubts about it. This article could some pruning and and a bit of fact-checking overall. I don't see this as part of a general resistance to coverage of non-heterosexual history. It's just hard to see the general relevance to the topic of piracy. And I'm very skeptical to the "democracy" info as well, and I believe it needs to be scrutinized.
Naval historians like Rodger are likely to be conservative and overly skeptical to reinterpretations, but their works need to be taken into account to some degree. It doesn't mean I personally agree with a conservative POV. As for "mateolage", I don't know what it is and I don't get any hits when googling for it.
If you feel that there are reliable sources that verify homosexuality among pirates, I urge you to add it. But I believe it should be addressed in the context of sexuality and social structure in general, not as a by-the-way section.
Peter Isotalo 16:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Piracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Piracy. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Piracy. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a reliable source of information?

Section 7 currently states that Piracy on the Danube took place "inside the European Union's territory".

As far as I am aware the European Union does not have any territory. AnnaComnemna (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

No objections or comments so I was about to delete this. I was dissuaded from so doing by the work involved in re-numbering the references. Is there a Wiki way of achieving this economically? Whilst pondering this I translated current refs 101-103, or several online translators did this for me. With I know not what standard of accuracy, but the translations I checked did not mention the EU, just the piracy! AnnaComnemna (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Modern day pirates

I think it would be interesting to add a section on modern day pirates, including, but not limited to:

Somali/Nigerian/Taiwan/China/Other pirates; the kind that use boats to attack other ships. Electronic information 'piracy' on the interwebs. State-sponsored/commercial pirate-style hackers, who, for instance may blackmail by seizing control of computer systems or otherwise seize servers or information for profits etc, and also the pirate party, who want a legal solution to the problems caused by intellectual property and piracy on the interwebs. 86.170.22.13 (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Source links 5 and 6 direct to a 404 page. Sorry don't have time/knowledge to fix Geodude86 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Opium was what they were after

The goods listed that pirates would steal would not cause a pirate to risk his life. A person could steal those things on land and have less of a risk of dying. Pirates were opium addicts who stole opium. The primary product that made money and was sure to make money in the spice trade was opium. Historians lie by omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.146.133 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Piracy. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2017

Change 'adbuction' to 'abduction'. Dwunn (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2018

pirate from Latin "pirata" - https://www.etymonline.com/word/pirate Loggerin (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

French link

change ((English)) ((French)) and ((Dutch)) to ((England|English)) ((France|French)) and ((Netherlands|Dutch)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:A534:BECE:2587:485E (talk • contribs)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Piracy, imperialism and commercial competition

The contention made by modern Emirati researchers, including the current Al Qasimi Ruler of Sharjah (in a detailed, if somewhat punctilious argument based on British correspondence and archives of the time) is that the British labelled the indigenous traders/maritime powers of the Persian Gulf 'Pirates' as a convenient label to justify British government military involvement and expenditure to curb local trade that competed with, or wasn't in the interests of, the East India Company. See 'The myth of Arab piracy in the Gulf' - https://books.google.ae/books/about/The_Myth_of_Arab_Piracy_in_the_Gulf.html?id=2YTJmnISdOMC Additionally, Al Qasimi contends, again based on archival material, that the Al Qasimi were at war with Muscat - Britain's ally with whom her officials were all too often found in cahoots. So attacking a Muscat ship (an act of war) was seen as 'piracy' by the British, Muscat's allies. So. How about those apples? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That’s not an apple. That’s a single source with a literal pedigree of self-interest. Were it an apple, it could be crushed for cider, baked in various ways, or even eaten directly, but it lacks even those simple virtues. Qwirkle (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
There are other sources. And the British archive - Lorimer's history and Gazetteer - is a single source of self-interest too! Your revert killed a load of textual improvements. Happy to chat about the competition one as a separate thing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The section isn’t sourced to either, though, is it...nor should it be, directly. Al Qasimi’s book is (openly and honestly) against contemporaneous scholarly consensus. Qwirkle (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's a thing. John Lorimer's 1915 history of the Gulf (Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf). The first mention of the Al Qasimi - Page 135: "The Qawasim of the coast known at the present day as Trucial Oman played a considerable part about this time in the Persian affairs. In 1727 a small British naval expedition exacted compensation from the Qasimi Shaihkh for losses which he had occasioned to the East India Company's Factory at Bandar Abbas by establishing a rival port at Basidu on the island of Qishm." We'd call a 'rival port' healthy competition these days... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, there’s a thing...it appears to be called a “cherry-picked cite,” and an ambiguous one at that. The incident is covered in more detail from pp630-, in the subchapter titled “Period Preceding the Rise of Piracy,” no? Qwirkle (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Noes, there's no ambiguity. The Al Qasimi picked allegiances and alliances with the Persians, fights with Arabs. They were the dominant maritime power on that coast. They got shares of Qishm in settlement. They're at war with Muscat and the Brits turn up constantly in the company of Muscat. The first 'piracy' I recall Lorimer reports was a Muscat boat that flew under the flag of Muscat until it was boarded, when it ran up the Brit flag. A critical view of Lorimer's accounts (which is what Al Qasimi offers) makes the simple charge of piracy seem a little too convenient for John Company. They were guilty of being the biggest dog on the porch until a bigger dog turned up. Oh, and Wahhabism, which doesn't really help exonerate them but it does start to build a more nuanced picture than the nice simple 'Arab pirates' trope. No biggie - I just think a more critical view of the easy story (not really revisionism) is interesting... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I do recall one incident in which the Al Qasimi are genuinely surprised that the Brits accuse them of piracy, when all they did was beat up a boat load of 'idolatrous Hindoostanees'. And who taught them religious intolerance? Afonso de bloody Albuquerque... Cheers Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
OH! And while we're at it, you can't seriously accuse me of cherry picking. I quoted Al Qasimi and you said he was biased. So I quoted Lorimer, the arch Brit and then you said I was cherry picking. But that's what we do when we dispute, no? Find evidence supporting our position. It's handy for me that dear John admits the Brits first bombarded the Al Qasimi for competing with them... :))) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

International waters/Dead link (6)

The article mentions the jurisdictional challenges in combating piracy when it occurs in international waters. An interesting concept that I wanted to read more about, however I discovered the relevant link is dead (404 error). I tried to mark the link as dead, but the page is locked to edits. Maybe someone with more power can do this. Deadset (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Serbs or Narentines?

Serbs were given the land of Pagania between Croatian Dalmatia and Zachlumia in the first half of the 7th century.

I think it is not correct to link Narentine pirates with Serbian nation in the seventh century - it is to early to talk about Serbs in this area at all for their nucleus was Raska which lies more northeast. This provinces were then inhabited by Narentines and their teritory was among the so called 'Sclavinias', small independent principalities which were later united in larger kingdoms.

Narentine piracy traditions were cherished even while they were in Serbia, serving as the finest Serb warriors.

And this part is obviously written by some who doesn't understand historical circumstances of that time. Pagania, teritory of Narentines was most of the time independant from Serbia or Croatia, later Croatia-Hungary, and no one can speak of serbian warriors or serbian identity of that country, i don't know what is the intention but this simply isn't correct.


That was probably writen by some Serb, they are trying to make themselves far more important than they were, nothing new here. This might be just written by someone using my brain tissue and my French half-sisters daughters of someone French and important France Goverment Entities Security married to my mother before she was married to my father have a helicopter downing emergency accident southeast east of Assacaias or east of it along the Tagus please call 00 351 243 333 122 for them at once and say as duas meias-irmãs francesas de Dona Inez tem tido urgencia de helicoptero sobre Tejo ou sudeste de Assacaias não longe de Tapada ou este de Assacaias! Inez Deborah Emilia Altar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.166.116.186 (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Privateers are not pirates

The section "Piracy in the Caribbean" goes on to talk about various crews granted letters of marque and sent out privateering. If they were privateers, they were not "pirates". Privateering is legal, piracy is not. They may have been "buccaneers" but they were not pirates. I also thought buccaneers were from 100 years before this, from the privateers who raided Spanish old ships,

64.223.166.179 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Please create a main article about pirates

I was surprised to find out that when you search up pirates on Wikipedia,you go the piracy page. Please create a main article about pirates (and make sure there is a link in the piracy page),because it sounds very necessary for pirates to have a main Wikipedia article. 2601:205:4100:CB5B:98DD:C293:513F:742F (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Click here to make the draft. 73.185.25.110 (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you think the distinction between "pirates" and "piracy" actually is, since a pirate is simple a person who has committed the crime of piracy. It's like saying we need a special page about murderers in addition to the one about the act of murder. Because, you know, murderers always have a certain, special kind of personality and they are a distinct, unique subsection of humanity.

I suspect when you say "pirates" you mean the particular style of "pirate" that is associated with the Caribbean in the 18th century. AS far as these existed, they were actually privateers (who weren't over nice about following the law strictly), not pirates, and most of their exploits and the stereotypes about them are complete myths made up over the years. You cant tell a "pirate" by the special way the look, talk and act. They are one and the same as many other disreputable characters which hung around dockyards all over the world. Actual piracy is committed all over the world by a complete spectrum of people covering the entire spectrum of the social scale and from every area off the world. 90% of all piracy as been performed by people who were fishermen the rest of the time when they weren't committing piracy, or merchantmen. Most "piracy" actually committed with ships on the high seas (as opposed to the more common small boat raiding) was actually privateering, and their crews were no different from any other maritime crew from the era. The rest was by unscrupulous merchant captains taking advantage of weaker vessels, which had been damaged by storm or disease onboard, or which were outgunned and taken by surprise. If you could tell a "pirate" by the different way they spoke and acted, it would be a lot easier to catch them. Whenever anyone talks about "pirates" they are almost invariably speaking of semi-mythological characters particularly associated with the Caribbean during a short period of time in the 1700s...and most of those crews were actually legally privateers. That is hardly fair to the thousands of regular men and women from all around the world who participated in some form of piracy at some point in their lives. A "pirate" is not some distinct cultural group with its own code of dress and language and speech, so there is no "typical pirate". Even less than there is such a thing as a "typical cowboy". At least "cowboy" is an occupation, and is associated only with the Southeastern United States. And they tend to wear a similar style of utilitarian clothing on the trail, even if it doesn't look much like the getups that popular mythology decked them out in. Even so I'll bet that if there is a page on "cowboys" at least half of the info on it is myth and legend, and little do do with the real occupation many men took on of herding cattle across the plains. It probably also mentions that the same occupation under a different name is found all over the world, but then proceeds to talk about the legendary American "cowboy" for 90% of the article. Just a guess, if I know wikipedia at all. It would be interesting to have an article all about what people think pirates are though. We write about other tall tales and myths as well, and there certainly is a mythological character called a "pirate" that looms large in the public mind, who walks about with a peg leg and silk sashes and pigtails, with an eye patch and pistols in his belt and a parrot, saying "arrh, matey" from his grizzled face, swashbuckling o'er the seas in his frigate with ratty black sails and a skull and crossbones flag. The Pirates of the Caribbean is a great example of this rot, which may be almost totally fictional, yet which is squarely based on a perception of "pirate" the very much exists. I suppose we could make an article all about what pirates are NOT, as a whole. That's hard to do though. And I'm sure many "pirate" fans would try very hard to destroy the page for ruining their glamorous fantasy world of adventure.


64.223.166.179 (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Donchabot.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It may be reasonable to assume that...

Insert any statement you like, and you have a true sentence. However, this is the opening sentence of the History section of the article: "It may be reasonable to assume that piracy has existed for as long as the oceans were plied for commerce." Either it is actually a reasonable assumption (which is still a statement about the plausibility of piracy having been around that long, not a factual claim about the duration of piracy's existence) or it's not a reasonable assumption and shouldn't be proposed, no matter how insulated in weasel words.

It may be reasonable to assume that the original author of that sentence (it comes with a citation) didn't consider it possible to defend the assumption as reasonable. Personally, I suspect they just have an overly florid style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsgrey (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Belatedly removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

_______ I dont normally edit pages and dont know your formats ect, but I feel I should point out the exchange rates all over this page are wildly inaccurate, if there is some aspect other than standard exchange rates in place this should be explained as well, for example,

"There was a great deal of money to be made in this way. The record breaker was the capture of the Spanish frigate Hermione, which was carrying treasure in 1762. The value of this was so great that each individual seaman netted £485 ($1.4 million in 2008 dollars)."

These numbers make no sense, Inflation from 1762 to 2022 Cumulative price change 21,806.81% Average inflation rate 2.09% Converted amount (£485 base) £106,248.03 Price difference (£485 base) £105,763.03 CPI in 1762 5.500 CPI in 2022 1,204.875 Inflation in 1762 3.77% Inflation in 2022 2.27% £485 in 1762 £106,248.03 in 2022 £106,248.03 is equal to $139,598.76 United States Dollar currently. the source for all these numbers is a geocities page that is clearly mistaken on the information they sourced for their page with no explanation of the exchange or where these numbers are coming from " Each man’s share amounted to £4,000 (see note 3 below) plus forty-two diamonds. 3.Equal to $4.3 million in 1994." What carat? what weight? ect ect __ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:C000:3AF0:D833:A537:16A9:B076 (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Piracy/Archive_2&oldid=1220377982"