Talk:Pirate utopia

Pro-anarchist slant?
Bit of a pro-anarchist slant here? Evan Donovan 03:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Where? Zanturaeon 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have posted a POV tag because of the obvious one-sided nature of this article. Alternative viewpoints and historical context are required.  For this reason, this entire article is currently suspect. --Zeamays (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you're seeing a pro-anarchist slant, unless maybe you think any article that doesn't condemn anarchism is "pro-anarchist". Anyway, as I understand it, the pirate republics, including Nassau (which is for some reason omitted in the article) had no rulers - at least as far as we know - so the term "anarchist" applies in the sense that these republics were "anarchist" in the literal sense, and not necessarily in the political sense. So there's no political slant, at least as I see it. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Tacit support by empires?
The article doesn't mention the possibility that the pirate utopias were supported tacitly by empires so long as the pirates attacked vessels of the rival empires. Autarch 19:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa! The section on the Barbary Coast pirate utopias mentions signing treaties with nations in agreement not to attack that nations' vessels. So much for the independence of these areas! Autarch 19:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

MERGE?
I like this whole notion by Hakim Bey, but i think it's part of his (Peter Lanborn Wilson)'s page. It doesn't deserve it's own page. In struggle and solidarity, -Dylanfly 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources?
This article apparently just parrots Peter Lamborn Wilson's claims about these alleged "pirate utopias," and doesn't attempt any actual scholarship, such as citing original sources or trying to verify/falsify Wilson's claims. It's like an article on "alien shape-shifting lizards" that only cites David Icke and doesn't attempt to engage him critically. --Cholling (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the comparison to Icke is absurd and uncalled for, but that is another matter. The real issue here is whether or not you have sources that dispute the article.  I have seen none, but would welcome any additions to the article, from reputable sources, that call into question Wilson's conclusions.  Have you any?  Have you any contribution to make to the article at all? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * notability is the issue here. 67.164.220.177 (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Pirate utopia" is certainly Wilson's neologism. If this deserves an article at all, it should be redirected to pirate haven, a far better known phrase. 151.197.22.58 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pirate haven is most certainly not a "far better known phrase." I would really like you to show a source for that claim. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  15:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, of course, extremely difficult and costly to actually prove which is better known so we usually resort to the following crude approximation:
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22pirate+utopia%22+-wikipedia 3,790 hits
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22pirate+haven%22+-wikipedia 13,600 hits.
 * Which is a pretty solid lead. Even more telling, though, is that in the first 20 hits on "pirate haven", twelve are actually about real sea-faring piracy (and 5 more are closely linked, e.g. an ad for a guesthouse in a former pirate haven), while in the first 20 hits on "pirate utopia", only five are about actual pirates (the rest are about concepts like DRM, and various modern "culture jamming" activities.) -- Securiger (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Split and merge ...
I was rather astonished by this article when I was redirected from pirate haven. Pirate haven is a well understood historical concept; pirate utopia is a controversial neologism developed recently by a political essayist who is so fringe, he is even considered controversial in anarchist circles. I believe the material about Peter Lamborn Wilson's theories should be merged into his own article unless they can be shown to be otherwise notable, while pirate haven should be used for an article on conventional historical research. Some of the articles in the "list of examples" for this one, contain leads to help start a havens article. -- Securiger (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As a solution, I recommend that someone with knowledge write a new article, pirate haven and then parts of this article could, with editing for POV be placed in that article. Then this defective article should be deleted. --Zeamays (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

why not 2 pages ? pirate utopia are more like a idea maybe also from french postmodernist and paul rainbow (and those that dumb dowen or improve the writtem things from foculte and derrida ) constrcut your owen id/space

pirate heavens are not much to do whit the consept pirate utopias pirate heaven have existed in philipines and stratit of mallaca  (maybe the pirates belive in TAZ  but just bussnis hubs for them since ther fake passports and knowledge of many langueses and tax heavns of sinagpore and borno island are what make the things be tramps not the islands in themself )

he are a controtivorls writer fpr anarchist but is not that the same thing to say that frideman or noziack would be conservative for the thommas paine movement/ides ? i mean post modernism are new ideas they will tride to be gruop togther whit somthing close consepets becuse not many writers abut that movments yet ? maybe move it to postmodernism section ? read focult hakim bay and paul rainbow write a more long aritckel abut pirate utopias/avoid power generaly ? move the whole thinbg to a website and link it from the wiki site abut taz or hakim bey?

aoc--201.159.224.136 (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In support of haven over utopia
I believe that the definitions of haven and utopia themselves not only point us in the correct direction on creating an appropriate page but will also clear up the question of bias.

Pulling definitions from Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

Haven

1 : harbor, port 2 : a place of safety : refuge 3 : a place offering favorable opportunities or conditions

Utopia

1: an imaginary and indefinitely remote place

2: often capitalized : a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions

3: an impractical scheme for social improvement

I believe that these definitions would show that a haven is simply a port or harbor which acted as a safe place or refuge for pirates or may have simply been a place where an inability or lack of desire to enforce maritime laws made for favorable conditions for pirates which I believe any historian or laymen would be willing to admit have or still do exist. On the other hand Utopia by definition would suggest a place where the laws, government, and social conditions match someone's ideals, most likely the pirates themselves, which would inherently imply that there is bias as soon as someone says or writes that someplace is a utopia.

I am planning on creating a page for pirate haven and fully support the idea of merging this article with the author since a pirate UTOPIA is simply his ideology on what constitutes a utopia and is no way representative of a tangible place since one man's utopia is another man's hell. --Epignosis (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

New article: Pirate haven
To end this debate, I have created a separate pirate haven article, without the anarchist theories. --Zeamays (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Thank you for taking the initiative on this I have been a bit preoccupied in completing the current school year. I plan to begin contributing to this page as soon as possible but must admit my skills in formatting the information to fit Wikipedia's style are very insufficient. Wondering if you would be willing to help me expand upon this page in the future?''' That said I do not think the pirate Utopia page should be deleted but instead relocated to an appropriate location. In my opinion this would be with the author, Peter Lamborn Wilson, who came up with this theory. In this way we would make both articles more complete instead of deleting valuable information.--Epignosis (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

LAY OFF, you bloodthirsty Zombies
It's a stub about pirate utopias. It's TWO PARAGRAPHS!! not long enough to have developed a POV bias yet, are you kidding? Most of the statements so far are factual. Not even long enough to tell where it's going yet. Articles like this about obscure subjects can take a long time to pull together. Show some respect for the effort people are making. THEY'RE VOLUNTEERS! Most people don't want or have time to worry about spending years learning the 400-pages of policy!! LEAVE NEW ARTICLES ALONE until they're 10 or 15 paragraphs long before even thinking about dropping the WP:BIBLE hammer. Someone will come along to represent (meaning CONTRIBUTE NOT JUST BITCH) the other POVs. Twang (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Pirates and zombies, already, where's the Nazi fascists?
 * Pretty obviously, "pirate haven" and "pirate utopia" are two different concepts: the "haven" is historically established, the "utopia" is an interpretative concept which may or may not be related to the history, and even if it were completely ahistorical it might still have some relevance as a myth or dream. So the actual question is, is "pirate utopia" a notable enough idea (and is Peter Lamborn Wilson a notable enough thinker) to warrant a wikipedia page, and myself, I would say yes, definitely -- PLW himself was a pretty big deal in the 90s, under his psuedonym "Hakim Bey", under which he published "Temporary Autonomous Zones".  He may not be regarded as a "mainstream anarchist thinker", within the "anarchist establishment" or something (but if you think about that for two seconds, it's difficult to see why you would care).
 * That said, I think the article could use some improvement, to my eye it doesn't spell out Lamborn's general thesis that well. I would say its something like: (1) one of the main reasons people became pirates is because they were on the run from the frankly dictatorial world of the British Navy, (2) pirate ships were run in a more democratic fashion, (3) it is possible that pirate ships were a key crucible of democracy, influencing the national revolutionary movements.  -- Doom (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Name
I changed the name to Hakim Bey since "Hakim Bey" is the name he is known. --95.8.191.160 (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This assertion has no basis in fact. Not one shred of evidence has been presented to prove these two names refer to the same person.  On the other hand, there is evidence that "Hakim Bey" has been used by multiple authors.  The merging of the two here on WP is problematic to say the least. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  01:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

is not the golden triangel also a pirate utopia (and other zones that have weak goverment and are a border ?) if you talk abuty pirate utopias are not todays dubai that and maybe bangkok ? places that somali go hide and clean there mony are a place that in reality are very much social liberal ...

dellmax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.187 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Scholarship
Is Wilson the only one who ever wrote about "pirate utopias"? Because there may be some serious doubts about the historicity and notability then. I mean historians might not be aware of the issue and might not have created reliable sources, because it is so new and obscure. Tinynanorobots (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I did some research, mainly reading Wilson's writings (wow). He came up with the whole idea from his original research, and he presents it differently then it is here. For example; it appears he uses Franco as a synonym for a Algerian pidgin, not an Argot. Anyway, I will make some changes. Tinynanorobots (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Humanities 2 1400-present
— Assignment last updated by Krisso12 (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)