Talk:Letter of marque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force French military history task force United States military history task force

	Piracy Portal Letter of marque lies in the latitude of WikiProject Piracy, a crew of scurvy editors bound to sharpen up all Wikipedia's piracy-related articles. If you want to ship with us and help improve this and other Piracy-related articles, lay aboard the project page and sign on for a berth.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Piracy To-do: edit  Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Piracy: Requests: Daniel Montbars, Diabolito, Henry Mainwaring, Ignatius Pell Expand: Charles Vane, Edward England, Emanuel Wynn, George Lowther, Henry Every, Pierre Le Grand, Roche Braziliano, Thomas Cocklyn, Woodes Rogers, Cleanup: Buccaneer, Israel Hands Verify: Alexandre Exquemelin Copyedit: Golden Age of Piracy Images:

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Contents 1 Result of Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 2 WP:MilHist Assessment 3 CSS Alabama 4 Actual Meaning of Marque 5 Removal of well-sourced material 6 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001

[edit] Result of Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001

Although I could probably google it, anyone know whatever happened to Ron Paul's Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001? I think that is something that should be included here. 69.208.228.193 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

i tried googleing this and couldn't find it anywhere. plenty of press about it when it was introduced, but i can't find any follow up on it. i'd be interested to hear what the outcome was. Nostalgicmonkey (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MilHist Assessment

A very nice start, and I especially like the picture. But for such a major element of the history of this period, I should think that a lot more could be said on the subject. Maybe some further examples of people who held letters of marque, more description as to how they differed between the nations, and some more about how one obtained Letters. LordAmeth 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSS Alabama

The CSS Alabama is properly described as a commerce raider. She was a regularly commissioned vessel and acting under the authority of the CS Navy, rather than a privately owned ship acting on a letter of marque. JE1977 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Since its been over 7 months and no one has argued against the point I will remove the CSS Alabama link. Twfowler 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actual Meaning of Marque

According to dictionary.com, the meaning of marque in this context means "siezure by way of retaliation", not "border". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guerre (talk • contribs) 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removal of well-sourced material

Given how difficult it is for Wikipedia to develop articles with well-sourced material, it is a bit astonishing to see the removal of well-sourced material from a wikipedia article without first reaching concensus among the articles' editors that doing so is appropriate. Could those who wish to make such removals kindly discuss them a bit first? (sdsds - talk) 04:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear if I'm following the edit stream, but I see your name both being surprised that people would edit out content and most recently editing out content without putting an entry on the Talk page about it, so I reverted that edit. In you edit comment you ask if people's names are really important when it comes to legislation in a Congress. The answer is, "of course". The history of the country is strongly about personalities and agendas, and knowing that the bill was introduced by Ron Paul adds quite a bit of information for the well-informed reader, no matter if they support or detest Ron Paul, his ideology is pretty well known. Do you know who wrote the Declaration of Independence? Who championed the New Deal? Who wrote the Sarbanes-Oxley or McCain-Feingold bills (OK, that was a gimme). The point is, who introduces a bill is very important to understanding quickly the philosophy behind a bill and the context in which it fits in the current government. That Ron Paul introduced this bill tells us that it's likely to be favored by strict constructionists and isn't likely to have a great deal of popular or political support. Those are very important to understand the position of this bill, why it was introduced, and why it wasn't passed. Leaving out such information leaves the reader without these tools and makes the article less informative. Wikipedia can't be in the position of assuming its readership to be dull and that all relevant information on a topic is to be provided by Wikipedia, and therefore holding back all bits of information that may require some knowledge on the reader's part. Besides, that's why hyperlinks are for. BillMcGonigle (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your comments on this! To be clear about my edits: I'm happy with the article mentioning Ron Paul by name, and I'm happy with the article omitting mention of Ron Paul by name. I'm not happy with the article ommitting mention of the legislation Ron Paul introduced. You are right of course the the "personalities and agendas" of individual legislators are really important aspects of any piece of legislation. As regards the "Letter of marque" article, though, the legislation itself is what is highly relevant to the topic. And for the article to meet the WP:NPOV standard we need to consider the view expressed by another editor that mention of presidential candidate Paul's name here is essentially "spam". I think the "right" solution would be to create a Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 article. There is no doubt that a link from that article to Ron Paul would be appropriate. Having that pair of hyperlinks is what hyperlinks are really for! (sdsds - talk) 04:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001

The article doesn't mention if this act was passed into law, defeated, or is still pending in the US Congress. --NEMT (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)