 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
It strikes me that there have been a number of filibusters not fitting the classic historical profile, i.e. Americans adventurers going after some version of " Manifest Destiny" in Latin American republics. For example, Josiah Harlan, Boris Skossyreff and Simon Mann. Would it be alright if we discussed these sorts of figures in the article and maybe made a category for all of them?-- Pharos 23:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not unless you have some external reference or citation, right? Otherwise that would be original research, which has some Wiki link I don't care to reference.
- So take the stuff about Hawai'i out.
- If you don't, do the PC thing and learn how to puncuate Hawai'i.
- No, sig, thanks. I'm on a WikiDiet(tm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.211 ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 21 May 2007
I don't know that I agree that the short paragraph on Operation Northwoods is really relevant. It mentions a filibuster, but did the proposed action qualify as such? I don't think so.
Anyone else? Mark Shaw ( talk) 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I put the item in to show that the term was still in use in the 20th Century, though you are quite correct that nothing occurred. The term is rather ironic that previously it was North Americans involved in Central and South America, Cuba and the Caribbean, but here it would have been Cubans themselves Foofbun ( talk) 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed a section on a purported 21st century ("modern"?) example as the source does not call it a "filibuster". The section was restored with the edit summary "The relevancy is fairly obvious given the definition."
We have a source defining a filibuster. Let's call it "A". We have a source explaining the 21st century story. Let's call it "B". Looking at A and B, we can conclude C: the modern story is a filibuster. It isn't mentioned by either of the sources, but it's fairly obvious, right?
Exactly. It's
synthesis: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."
I'll let it sit for a couple of days, hoping for a direct, relevant source, then yank it (if no one else does first). - SummerPhD ( talk) 01:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- What do you propose we call this "new phenomenon" then if a definition for this type of adventurous action already exists and has existed for quite some time? Note that
war tourism is not an accurate definition if the parties in question are actively participating in fighting and filibustering is the only relevant way to describe such actions. In the interest of letting readers know about this relevant trend for adventurism that has likely happened in many if not most armed conflicts throughout history, I fail to see your logic.
-Clark Sui (
talk) 02:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't propose to call it anything. I am simply stating that reliable sources do not call this filibustering. Yes, you believe it is and you feel it is a "relevant trend" and you think it has happened in many armed conflicts throughout history. Unfortunately, reliable sources do not say this. "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." - SummerPhD ( talk) 03:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- We have one reliable source defining a filibuster (Lets call it A). We have further documentation of this action in the 21st century (Let's call that example A1). We have documented evidence that the trend is ongoing in the modern day (Let's call that example A2). There is no B in the equation, there is only an A.
- Understand where you are coming from but perhaps we need another opinion? -Clark Sui ( talk) 03:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- What do you propose we call this "new phenomenon" I don't think there is anything new about young men going off to fight for causes they believe in or for money. See Hessians, French Foreign Legion, Marquis de Lafayette, and even the Crusades. What IS a phenomenon is the distinct 19th Century activity of some Americans who tried to lead revolutions in Latin America. People have been going abroad to seek military adventure for as long as there has been humanity. Filibustering, as applied in the 19th Century, was a different and distinct variety of that larger human phenomenon of adventure-seeking. -- Bruce Hall ( talk) 03:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Bruce, I agree with you and apologies, the "new phenomenon" line was inappropriate and meant sarcastically. Best, -Clark Sui ( talk) 04:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
This section Modern Instances and subsection Libyan civil war are disputed (see above). I contend the source cited does not call this a filibuster or relate it to the phenomenon discussed, making the addition synthesis. The other editor feels filibustering is the only relevant way to describe the sourced actions. - SummerPhD ( talk) 04:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 Response to
third opinion request:
|
| In fact every article on Wikipedia is written by synthesizing sources into coherent description of topic. The synthesis may only be called improper if original research is required to connect two sources. Combining the story and the definition to conclusion that this story depicts modern occurrence of filibustering doesn't require original research. That said, the way this story is presented to the reader implies that this case is a typical modern occurrence of filibustering, which can't be concluded from these two sources without additional references and/or original research.— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 11:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC) |
I don't see the relevance of the "modern" section on the Libyan war soldier. Filibuster is mostly a term for 19th Century Americans who traipsed around Latin America leading efforts to forment revolution in violation of US policy with the goal of acquiring the territory for themselves or the U.S. It does not apply to a simple foot soldier who fights for a cause abroad that he believes in or as a mercenary. The Libyan example is in the wrong era, the wrong continent, and the wrong responsibility (foot soldier not a leader). Maybe one can make an cultural argument about Americans going abroad exporting their values but the instance doesn't fit in an article in an encyclopedia on the 19th Century filibustering. -- Bruce Hall ( talk) 03:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The "Modern" section is beyond stupid. If the definition of "filibuster" were "A private American citizen who fights overseas" then everyone who joined the French Foreign Legion, everyone who was involved in the Spanish-American War (Hemingway, anyone ?) anyone who was in WW I's Lafayette Escadrille was a filibuster. It's ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 12 November 2012
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Knight of Truth ( talk) 14:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
– WP:NATURAL recommends that less common names are preferable over parenthetical disambiguation. Actual freebooters seem to be clearly the primary topic, compared to somewhat obscure things named freebooters, so we can move the disambiguation page out of the way. Knight of Truth ( talk) 02:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The article currently explains both the origins and evolution of the current term. Secondly, there is no demonstration here that freebooters is more common name for this subject matter.-- Labattblueboy ( talk)
- I'm not arguing "freebooter" is the most common name. Under
WP:NATURAL, it is better to use a name that is less common if it does not require disambiguation. That's the basis of the proposal.
Knight of Truth (
talk) 14:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- We've been down this road before and if there is not even the slightest common name basis for the move I won't support it. You need to proactively demonstrate data.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 03:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. I need to see more reliable evidence of a primary topic. I do not see anything like it when I do a google search. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 06:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- The search results you linked are mostly dictionary entries that define the word "freebooter" as e.g. "An adventurer who pillages, plunders or wages ad-hoc war". In other words, those results show that that is the most common meaning of the term. It does not turn up results for any of the other things on the disambiguation page, so Google would seem to substantiate that freebooters as filibusters is the primary topic. Knight of Truth ( talk) 14:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. The term "filibuster" is certainly the most common term used in the era described in the first paragraph of the article lead (i.e. The term is usually used to describe United States citizens who attempted to foment insurrections in Latin America in the mid-19th century, but is also applicable in the modern day.) We should retain the common historical context by using the word that historians generally use. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 14:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that "filibuster" is more common, but what about
WP:NATURAL?
Knight of Truth (
talk) 21:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- "Natural disambiguation" is one alternative and "Parenthetical disambiguation", which this article title uses, is another -- neither is preferable to the other. The goal of the policy section you refer to (i.e. "to avoid using an ambiguous title") is met by the present title and has the additional advantage of being the most common name.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk) 22:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's not the policy. Natural disambiguation is preferable over parenthetical disambiguation, so long as the natural title is still readily identifiable. WP:NATURAL says of parenthetical disambiguation: "If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses..." (emphasis added). Knight of Truth ( talk) 00:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- "Natural disambiguation" is one alternative and "Parenthetical disambiguation", which this article title uses, is another -- neither is preferable to the other. The goal of the policy section you refer to (i.e. "to avoid using an ambiguous title") is met by the present title and has the additional advantage of being the most common name.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk) 22:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose this is not the most likely topic associated with the term "freebooter". Freebooter should redirect to pirate. -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 01:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
'The Spanish form entered the English language in the 1850s, as applied to military adventurers from the United States then operating in Central America and the Spanish West Indies.[3]' Oxford English Dictionary, "filibuster" . Retrieved 2012-10-26.
This illustrates again why other editors need to check the sources cited, and why there needs to be a Wikitemplate for 'selective and misleading use of citation'. Here's why. The OED entry cited, which is the second entry in the OED Online under the heading of filibuster, in fact states the following:
filibuster, n.
2. spec.
a. One of a class of piratical adventurers who pillaged the Spanish colonies in the West Indies during the 17th c.
1792 E. Burke Consideration Present State Affairs in Wks. (1826) VII. 93 The Flibustiers..about a century back .. brought .. calamities upon the Spanish colonies.
1856 T. De Quincey Confessions Eng. Opium-eater (rev. ed.) in Select. Grave & Gay V. 6 This .. man is a buccaneer, a pirate, a flibustier.
b. A member of any of those bands of adventurers who between 1850 and 1860 organized expeditions from the United States, in violation of international law, for the purpose of revolutionizing certain states in Central America and the Spanish West Indies.
1854 J. R. Lowell Cambr. 30 Years Ago in Prose Wks. (1890) I. 85 He who was ordained to-day might..accept a colonelcy of filibusters to-morrow.
1855 H. D. Thoreau Let. 7 Feb. in Corr. (1958) 371 The gold-diggers and the Mormons, the slaves and the slave-holders, and the flibustiers.
1856 J. G. Whittier Haschish in Panorama ix, A raving Cuban filibuster!
attrib.
1857 T. P. Thompson Audi Alteram Partem I. ii. 6 To avoid a collision with the filibuster power [i.e. the U.S.A.].
c. In wider sense: One who resembles a ‘filibuster’ (sense 2a or 2b) in his actions; now esp. one who engages in unauthorized and irregular warfare against foreign states.
1861 W. G. Clark in F. Galton Vacation Tourists & Trav. 1860 31 The contrast which these filibusters [Garibaldians] presented to the royal troops was exceedingly striking.
1863 J. W. Draper Intell. Devel. Europe (1865) iv. 95 The Greek colonists were filibusters; they seized by force the women wherever they settled.
1896 E. Dowson Let. 5 July (1967) 372 Yet they have always their Austin, & his praise of filibustiers.
d. nonce-use. A vessel employed in filibustering; a pirate craft.
1860 J. L. Motley Hist. Netherlands (1868) II. xviii. 455 The coast of..Dunkirk swarmed with their .. craft, from the flybooter or filibuster of the rivers to the larger armed vessels.
Hence, it's misleading to claim, citing the OED Online as here, that 'The Spanish form entered the English language in the 1850s, as applied to military adventurers from the United States then operating in Central America and the Spanish West Indies'. Rather, as the very source cited makes clear, the term as flibustier (via the Spanish form or otherwise) entered the English language at least as early as the day on 5 November 1792, at Bath, when Burke wrote Heads for Consideration on the Present State of Affairs. 101.162.17.60 ( talk) 06:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Filibuster (military). 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209182541/http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/may_manifest.html to http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/may_manifest.html
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) 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The Fitzhugh quotation seems overlong, methinks. Onanoff ( talk) 20:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that a previous heading covering masculinity and racial superiority was removed by user OgamD218. The section did present the arguments of two authors as stalwart fact, so I understand why he removed it, but the books I reference here by Greenberg and Bederman do nevertheless represent a major part of the historiography, and I feel that the gendered aspect of filibustering ought not to go unmentioned. I have hence aimed to try and present their arguments in a reasonably balanced manner, making it clear that this is just the argument made by some prominent authors about the matter.
If any editor does feel the section to be worth removing I would ask them to instead try and rewrite it in a more suitable manner than I have (assuming they see fault in my edits, which considering my limited experience on this site would not be unexpected). Masculinity is very important to filibustering, and Bederman and (particularly) Greenberg make very persuasive arguments about it.
In short, I believe I have properly conformed to the guidelines, but if not I would request that amendments to my edits are made, rather than flat removal. Henryfawcett ( talk) 01:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- C-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- C-Class United States History articles
- Low-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Latin America articles
- Low-importance Latin America articles
- Latin America articles