Talk:Mare Liberum

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

International relations: Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Mid-importance).

Redirects

Mare Liberum and Mare liberum (caps and non-caps) redirects to two different pages (International Waters and The Free Sea). There should be a "This article is about the international law doctrine" and "This article is about the book" thing on top of both pages, but only when the user is redirected from Mare Liberum/liberum. I don't know how to do that (only when the user is redirected, that is). Can someone else add this? -sd- 21:57, 23 November 2008

Done. See "Wikipedia:Hatnote" for a list of hatnotes that can be applied to articles. Also, please sign and date your comments by adding four tildes ("~~~~") after them. Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As both "Mare Liberum" and "Mare liberum" are redirect pages, I wonder why this article does not use that "vacant" title, instead of the English translation of the Latin title of the book. Nobody uses "The free sea" to refer to the book, even in Anglophone countries; the Latin title is commonly used. I therefore propose to re-christen the article "Mare Liberum". This would not conflict with any "international-law doctrine" article as that doctrine is properly called "freedom of navigation" (though the article of that title currently is overly-narrowly focused on a matter of US foreign policy; I hope to rectify that in due course). I think the current linking with the International Waters article of one of the redirects is also inappropriate, as the International-Waters doctrine is more properly related with Grotius Dutch colleague Cornelius van Bynkershoek, but that is another matter.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal to rename this article "Mare Liberum" sounds fine to me. Not quite sure what you mean when you say that the "current linking with the International Waters article of one of the redirects is also inappropriate". Are you saying that "Mare liberum" should not link to "International waters"? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article about the book should of course link to the International Waters article (and vice versa). What I meant is that the term "Mare liberum" (with an undercase l) in wikipedia currently redirects to the International Waters article, as if the two were synonymous. I understand that the person who made up this construction thinks that "mare liberum" (let's dispense with the capitals :-) is equivalent with the doctrine of "freedom of the high seas" as codified in the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, which doctrine is touched upon in the International Waters article. I think that could be argued, but it is not self-evident. I am also not sure that everybody would use the two terms interchangably as if "mare liberum" were a technical term. In any case it is awkward to use the same term for two different redirects, depending on the use of an uppercase or lowercase letter (even though the International Waters article provides an explanation of this usage; however, that does not help people who input one of the versions of the term and get randomly assigned to one of the articles). So I think the best way to go about it would be to have all versions of "mare liberum" redirect to the article about the book and put in a warning at the top of the article that some people use the term as a synonym of the doctrine of the "freedom of the seas" which is currently treated in the International Waters article. Would that be acceptable?--Ereunetes (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, which sounds eminently plausible. I don't think I know enough about the subject to confirm it, though. Do go ahead if you see fit. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the entire Talk:The Free Sea page to this talk page after I executed the change discussed above. The normal "move" procedure did not work, because the Mare-Liberum page already existed.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also pointed the redirect page "Mare liberum" here, after I changed the wikilinks in the pages that linked to that page to links to the International waters article, where appropriate. I don't think there will be any confusion, also because I changed the redirect5-templates at the top of the articles in question to "for"-templates.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mare Liberum. 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/20131007015804/http://kb.nl/bladerboek/mareliberum/browse/index_1.html to http://www.kb.nl/bladerboek/mareliberum/browse/index_1.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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]