Talk:Forewick Holm

Norse name

I note from the source that Hill is "re-naming" the island Forvik. This is ambiguous and may well mean that he is exercising his right to give his property a new name, rather than that it is an original Norse name. More research needed on this. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 11:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Forewick is the adjoining coast of Papa Stour. It's Forewick Holm, not Forewick itself. He's got that wrong. I also find it odd that he nordicises "Forvik", but anglicises "Holm" which is authentic Norse in this case. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Population

I thought we had agreed not to update census figures, so that all remain comparable. I suggest listing the population (2001) as 0, with a note of the presnt occupation. BTW I like the infobox with ranking note moved down. Finavon (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a quick note on the Population rank page. I certainly don't want us to be amending existing populations all the time, but didn't think we could ignore this completely new addition. Yes, please amend the box - it is certainly misleading at present. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 07:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

== Does Hill get the north sea oil revenues all to himself?81.156.140.91 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Insofar as they exist in the Sound of Papa, I would have thought that was some way off myself. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 07:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was No consensus -- Ben MacDui 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Crown Dependency of Forvik duplicates information in this article and claims micronation status for the island, and is unreferenced and uncategorised. If the micronation status can be sustained, then a reference should be provided and [[Category:Micronation|Forvik]] added. The flag strikes me as being a nonsense. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 21:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on whether it is nonsense or not is not fact. It was created recently, there is plenty of information on this micronation available throughout the internet and it is by definition a micronation, or an "unrecognised state-like entity". This article describes the island, the Crown Dependency of Forvik article describes the micronation, other than the location the subjects of the articles are different. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a long-established WP convention for the naming and content of articles about micronations. It is detailed at length at the Wikiproject Micronations page. Crown Dependency of Forvik conforms with it. Forewick Holm does not. Your comment about the "micronation status being sustained" makes no sense whatsoever. Your personal opinion concerning the flag is irrelevant. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

At the time of writing, the CD of Forvik articles had no references. By 'sustained' I meant 'evidence that it exists'. I also rather assumed there might be a more robust definition of a micronation than is actually used by the Wikiproject. See also note below. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 07:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a merge is definitely justified. Lots of duplicate information and a high risk of a POV fork. --Stlemur (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about a piece of real estate. Crown Dependency of Forvik is about an ephemeral unrecognised statelike entity. The two are entirely distinct. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any serious sources for the "Crown Dependency of Forvik" thing? Articles poking fun at 'Captain Calamity' aren't really what's needed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"What's needed" for what, exactly? --Gene_poole (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

People writing about the "micronation" per se would be nice. At the moment, as I said, what's there isn't that. Call me number six-ish in favour of a merge to here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "People" have already written about the micronation "per se". That's exactly what Crown Dependency of Forvik is. Forewick Holm, on the other hand, is about a piece of real estate in the Shetlands. Two different subjects. Same as Seborga and Principality of Seborga. WP has long-established precendents for this sort of thing. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'proposed policy' page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronations/Micronation convention. The threshold for inclusion is fairly low and "as a consequence they are generally viewed by external observers and commentators as being eccentric and ephemeral in nature." Indeed. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 07:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the nature of the beast. Again, I fail to see your point. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The proposed policy states "Generally speaking, in order to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia article, a micronation should have been documented as the main subject of reportage in multiple non-trivial third party sources, in multiple countries, over a period of years." Forvik is a few weeks old. As far as I'm concerned that settles it. --Stlemur (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The proposed policy (which has actually been the de-facto WP convention for more than half a decade) also notes that exceptions may exist in cases where significant reportage occurs over a limited time period. As far as I'm concerned, that settles it. The bottom line here is that this article should properly describe a piece of geography with extremely marginal significance. It should not describe the micronational entity created by a guy who sometimes lives on it. That content does not properly belong in this article.

If there is to be any merging of these articles, this one should be merged into Crown Dependency of Forvik, and not vice versa. The only significance that the island has - in fact the only reason that I or anyone else outside the Shetlands has heard of it, is a direct consequence of global media reportage about the micronation created by the guy who owns it. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the CD of Forvik article now (approximately) contains the same amount of content as this article, and will have much more content in the near future. It is a micronation, it has followed the proposed policy (which has existed as a WP convention for several years as Gene Poole explained), and opinions on whether it is nonsense or an eccentric creation or not (seems these opinions have been mentioned several times, though they are not suitable arguments for a Wikipedia talk page) are in no way relevant. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Quoting again:

Generally speaking, in order to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia article, a micronation should have been documented as the main subject of reportage in multiple non-trivial third party sources, in multiple countries, over a period of years.

Reportage in major national broadsheet daily newspapers, and in non-fiction works released under the imprint of respected publishing houses might reasonably be considered to be non-trivial.

Some exceptions to this guideline may apply - for example if a micronation exists for only a brief period, but receives national media coverage and notoriety during that time by being linked to allegedly contentious activities, or due to the judicial prosecution of its members - it might be argued that it warrants a dedicated article.

I don't see how that standard is met. We have a number of national and international news sources covering the story for the period of a week (I can find none more recent than 24 June, so literally nine days of coverage); [[WP:NOT#NEWS|Wikipedia is not a news source. We don't have anything "contentious"; given time it's possible that this will happen, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Stlemur (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I say merge - the two are one and the same. There is little to say about Forewick Holm, other than Mr Hill's fantasies, interesting as they are. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I say don't merge - how can you say they are one and the same? One's an island the other's a micronation - the only way in which they are the same is in location, other than that there is no similarity. Whether you think it is interesting or not (in other words, your opinion on the micronation) is irrelevant, and if there is little to say about the island itself it has nothing to do with whether there should be an article on the micronation or not (a red herring argument). Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The island is the micronation. They are one and the same. It looks like some kind of tax dodge/scam anyway, selling those plots of land, which would make that page violate - WP:Advert, if nothing else.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stlemur (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC) - Your own link to [Google News] (and other news aggregators) disagree with you Stlemur. Coverage is subdued, but sustained from reputable publications internationally. All the coverage is about the Crown Dependency of Forvik, not the Island of Forewick Holm. This is a micronation that has captured the interest of journalists, and their reading/viewing public. In short order there will be far more content in the article specific to the Crown Dependency of Forvik than Forewick Holm, reinforcing further the clear need for two separate articles. Clearly, don't merge. Dalvikur (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Forvik Island is Forewick Holm - the names mean exactly the same thing. I mean, do we have two separate articles for the platform that Sealand is on, and the so called micronation? --MacRusgail (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we do. We also have separate articles on the town of Seborga and the Pricipality of Seborga, the town of Aramoana and the micronation of that name, the Conch Republic and the town of Key West and quite a number of others. This is a long-established WP convention. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to this, there seems to have been nothing in the news since 2 July. --Stlemur (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The island is the micronation. They are one and the same. It looks like some kind of tax dodge/scam anyway, selling those plots of land, which would make that page violate - WP:Advert, if nothing else.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stlemur - you have made this comment before, except in the last comment you used 24th June and you were eventually proven to be wrong. Why is this new comment relevant? MacRusgail - micronations have in the past been created for "tax dodging and scams", see Dominion of Melchizedek. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As per my comment above of 27 June, quoting the guidelines on micronation notability. Sustained media coverage does not exist for Forvik. --Stlemur (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And Gene Poole refuted your argument on the same day. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, then, we have very different readings of the guidelines as stated. --Stlemur (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please use quotes from WP:MICROCON to explain why CD of Forvik should not have its own article and explain why you think this? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that question has been asked and answeed, but I'll repeat for clarity. Firstly:

Generally speaking, in order to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia article, a micronation should have been documented as the main subject of reportage in multiple non-trivial third party sources, in multiple countries, over a period of years. This condition has clearly not been satisfied, as with an establishment date of 18 June 2008 the micronation simply cannot have been reported over a series of years. Furthermore, with regard to the transitory state of news coverage, it does seem likely that the period of reportage has already ended. I'll contrast this with Republic of Lakotah, for which news coverage was sustained for about two months internationally.

Now, the guideline goes on to state:

Some exceptions to this guideline may apply - for example a micronation may have existed for only a brief period, but nonetheless become the subject of national or international media coverage or notoriety. Reasons for this may include the micronation being linked to allegedly contentious activities or the judicial prosecution of its members, as a consequence of effective promotion of its activities by its founder/s, or because the reasons for its creation reflect broader contemporary political, social, economic or philosophical trends, in its locality, or in the wider world. Under the circumstances of these exceptions it might be argued that such a micronation warrants a dedicated article.

None of these three caveats are satisfied: one might argue that Forvik is a tax dodge, but this is conjecture and Mr Hill has not been, to my knowledge, prosecuted and Forvik has not been linked to any "contentious activities". A minimum standard of "effective promotion" is not met in that Mr Hill has not been, as far as I can determine, doing the interview circuit. He does claim "I've had journalists from Japan, France, Russia and the UK actually visit and have done radio interviews all over the world. One of these was with radio Hawaii and lasted about 20 minutes" but I can't find any evidence of this and certainly none of this coverage is cited in the Crown Dependency of Forvik article. The final clause, "reasons for its creation reflect broader contemporary political, social, economic or philosophical trends, in its locality, or in the wider world" is quite difficult to prove; there has been a Shetland independence discussion but that seems to have even sparser coverage than Forvik.

In any case, if any of those conditions were satisfied, it would not necessarily demand that Forvik have its own article, although it would be an argument in favor. Furthermore, an argument supporting a separate article cannot be founded on the supposition that supporting sources exist, only on their actual existence. The burden of proof for sufficient notability is on the opponents, not proponents of merger.

As such, could you outline, based on the guideline you cite above and general Wikipedia policy, why Forvik the micronation is sufficiently notable to have its own article? --Stlemur (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph you wrote is irrelevant, as CD of Forvik is an exception. CD of Forvik has existed for a brief period, but nonetheless became the subject of national or international media coverage or notoriety. Notice that WP:MICROCON states "reasons may include" - these are examples based on the history of micronations, circumstances will be different for each micronation. As long as it has "existed for a brief period, but nonetheless became the subject of national or international media coverage or notoriety", then it is an exception. However, you were wrong about the "reasons for its creation reflect broader contemporary political, social, economic or philosophical trends, in its locality, or in the wider world" point, because of this - "[the Forvik Declaration of Dependence] raises interest in the question of what Shetland's status should be, as is his intention. Many Shetlanders would be quite interested to see whether this has any impact on views in relation to greater autonomy for the isles. From time to time, it has been the council's policy that we could provide a better service if we had greater control of our own resources. From that point of view he is spot on", which you can find here.

So it is clear now that I have an argument in favor of the article's existence. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When was the last international article published on Forvik? The July 2 article on the New Statesman site [1] i wouldn't consider international. Real coverage on Forvik seems to have lasted only about a week. A large chunk of the Forvik article is a duplicate of this anyway, another chunk is of quotations. Celtus 06:05, 13 July 2008

Notability is not temporary. Multiple reputable cited media sources have already established the micronation's notability. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, "Articles should not be about events that have strictly passing significance and interest. Events which only garner transitory attention do not merit encyclopedic articles, and may be better suited for news portals such as Wikinews." --Stlemur (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing an event. We're discussing an entity. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course we're discussing an event -- Stuart Hill's publicity stunt. --Stlemur (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing the micronation entity that was the tangible and enduring outcome of a publicity stunt, the article about which complies with WP conventions and widely supported proposed policies that have evolved via consensus over a period of more than 5 years. The argument that that article should represent the sole exception to established practise is neither cogent nor sustainable. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That assertion represents circular logic -- asserting Forvik's status as a notable micronation to invoke the micronation guidelines, then using the micronation guidelines to assert Forvik's status as a notable micronation. Let's say that Hill had done anything else: set up a surf school on Forewick Holm to ephemeral news coverage, established a bank on Forewick Holm to ephemeral news coverage -- in that case, it would be clear that, unless and until the First Bank of Forewick Holm did something which made it notable in and of itself, far beyond being simply established, it would not deserve its own article. The status of something being a micronation does not grant it special privileges beyond the general notability guidelines for Wikipedia as a whole.

Now, I think two different arguments are being conflated here. General notability merits inclusion; I don't think anyone in this debate is arguing that Forvik doesn't deserve to be mentioned at all, or even that it's the most important thing to happen on Forewick Holm in the past few hundred years. The topic under discussion is merger. Stuart Hill has declared independence, written a letter to the Queen, and solicited citizenship applications, all as part of, really, one news story. Since then, nothing. No interviews, no coverage, the "entity" is simply Stuart Hill's blog.

You, Gene Poole, ask why Forvik should be treated as an exception. I will note that Onecanadasquarebishopsgate has already asserted that Forvik should be treated as an exception, in the opposite direction; I am not the person arguing the micronation guidelines should be overlooked or suspended for this article. The affirmative case for splitting the article, by those guidelines, simply has not been made in any kind of definitive way. I can only here reiterate the arguments I've already stated: Forvik has not "been documented as the main subject of reportage in multiple non-trivial third party sources, in multiple countries, over a period of years." Nor has it "become the subject of national or international media coverage or notoriety", or at least, not in any way that would not render the entire guideline meaningless. Coverage has been ephemeral, dead for the past two weeks. Forvik may become notable enough for its own article in the future, but it's not now. --Stlemur (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We have already covered this ground. Micronations, by their nature are largely ephemeral. Most do little other than simply "exist". That's the nature of the subject. The Forvik micronation article complies with the proposed WP content policy on the subject of micronations - not just the bits you selectively quote. That proposed policy has been the de facto reality for over half a decade. It represents community consensus. Numerous precedents exist for separate articles about geographical places vs micronations that share similar nomenclature, or assert ownership over said geography. This example is no different. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Stlemur, that is a straw man argument. By exception I did not say that Forvik is an exception to micronations, but an "exception" as described in WP:MICROCON. I don't "read WP:MICROCON differently" as you have said in the past - in fact, as Gene Poole explains, you selectively quote the convention. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 08:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"That proposed policy has been the de facto reality for over half a decade." The period of time is impressive - but why then is it still only "proposed" rather than an actual policy? Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposed policy was only properly documented for the first time earlier this year, as part of the Micronations Wikiproject, which commenced last year. It's a distillation of over half a decade's worth of WP consensus and convention, drawn from many dozens of article discussions, collaborations and VfD / AfD outcomes, involving many dozens of editors. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote

A section for voting on this matter, comments go above, please.

Merge

• Strong merge (as I say above) --MacRusgail (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• As MacRusgail says, merge. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. --Stlemur (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - (because of what Stlemur stated above). Celtus 06:05, 13 July 2008
• Merge I admire the enthusiasm of those supporting a separate micronation article but at this point I can't see the point of having two. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge

• Absolutely do not merge. They are two entirely different subjects. One is a piece of physical geography, and the other is an ephemeral statelike entity. Chalk and cheese. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly do not merge. There is far more content now in the Crown Dependency of Forvik article than in Forewick Holm, information which is not applicable at all to Forewick Holm. Dalvikur (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly against the merge - I agree with Gene Poole's and Dalvikur's reasons. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Pretty much per Gene Poole. Both are capable of having encyclopaedic articles written about them. Were that not the case (such is the case with the Hutt River Station which is the physical location for Principality of Hutt River) then I would have voted merge. Orderinchaos 09:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Do not merge - An island is separate from it's government (recognised or not). Great Britain has its own article, just about the island, whereas the old Kingdom has a separate article. Same goes for these two IMO. Craitman H. Pellegrino (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose merger - Other article seems adequately sourced, and contains some content which is at best tangential to this article. Also, the story is at this point only less than a month old. As such, it may well be far too soon to come to the conclusion that there will be no subsequent stories, which seems to be a position taken by some here. Would hold open the possibility for possible merger later if no further content becomes available for some time, but think it would be premature to come to that conclusion this quickly. John Carter (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As the above is a minor controversy and positions seem somewhat entrenched I have listed the proposal at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Forewick Holm. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forvik.com/faqs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720035702/http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/news_07_2008/Hill%20lures%20oil%20prospectors%20to%20isle.htm to http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/news_07_2008/Hill%20lures%20oil%20prospectors%20to%20isle.htm

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) 01:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Journal article

I'm checking to see if this is a RS over on WP:RSN. Assuming it is, it should be useful. Bromley86 (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Too much about Stuart Hill

The article is supposed to be about the island, not Stuart Hill. Whilst I think it is fine to mention him, the article goes into far too much detail about him. 46.208.178.175 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Stuart Hill's antics are the only reason that the article exists. There are many islets in Shetland that are more significant than Forewick but don't have articles of their own. The neighbouring Holm of Melby is about five times as big and has some interesting neolithic remains, but no one's been mad enough to set up an independent state there and so Wikipedia doesn't cover it. Zacwill (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

@Ben MacDui: Must we have a (dis)infobox in the article? With the exception of "highest elevation", it gives us no information that isn't already presented in the lead. It also takes up a ridiculous amount of space, resulting in all the images being shunted into the references section (on my screen at least). Zacwill (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks fine on my screen and it does have a location map that is probably helpful for non-UK visitors. Ben MacDui 10:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The location map is so zoomed out that it only really tells us that Forewick is in Shetland, which, again, is in the first line of the lead. Zacwill (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

We know where Shetland is but not everybody will. In theory we could use a map such as Shetland UK relief location map.jpg. However the syntax of the infobox has been 'improved' so many times by tech-skilled folk that I am not sure I can manage that easily. I will have a go soonest. Ben MacDui 15:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)