Talk:Sovereign State of Forvik

Re: Gene Poole's edit 01:13, 4 July 2008

"However, as is the case with many micronations, the "secession" of Forvik is largely a tongue-in-cheek exercise propagated as a promotional stunt by a single eccentric individual, and is without any real legal foundation." If you are quoting a reliable source then please write it that way attributing the source. As written in your edit it breaches WP:NPOV and should be removed; "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". Nice work on the rest of the article. Dalvikur (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we actually have any references supporting this claim? I am not suggesting that this claim is not true (many micronations don't have a true legal foundation), but I believe calling it a "tongue-in-cheek" exercise led by an "eccentric" individual is nothing more than an opinion. Obviously, the reply will be that most people consider this a "tongue-in-cheek" exercise and that few people take this "secession" seriously, but I would suggest finding a reference (specific to Crown Dependency of Forvik) and rewriting the claim as a quote, to avoid breaching WP:NPOV in any way. As for the "legal foundation" comment, that also needs to be rewritten, but I think one of the earlier newspaper reports suggested that there really was no legal foundation - I can't remember where I read it though... Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the statement in question is rather problemmatic. Forvik is the creation of a single individual, he is considered an eccentric, and his claims do not have a sound legal basis. All three assertions are explicitly supported by the listed reference sources (although they have not yet been cited inline), so they are most certainly not POV. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Good, with the inline citations that will become more clear. I didn't think there was anything wrong with statement, but I thought it was better when rewritten as quotes, it's the same content with the added benefit of having a reference and not breaching WP:NPOV. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

On no, it's him again

Congratulations on surviving the AfD. Here, (as suggested) is the nub of my complaint. On several occasions suggestions that somehow the existing wording was misleading, a hoax etc. were rebutted with the statement to the effect that "it's a micronation". Now you and I know what a micronation is, but the average reader may think it means "a very small nation" and not understand that the concept embraces the virtual, non-legal, and imaginative and "states" that exist only on paper, on the Internet, or in the minds of their creators. It's all very well to say micronation is blue linked, but I think it would improve many readers' understanding of the subject if reference was made to, for example, the fact that the 'Crown Dependency' status may be claimed but that this is a legal fiction (rather than just noting that HM has yet to comment - and implying that she might into the bargain.) What do you think? Ben MacDui 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have an explanation in all microstate articles describing that the names of microstates are legal fact? From the Monaco article: Monaco is a small sovereign city-state located in Western Europe. If people do not want to research the topic of city-states or microstates, do we need to have an explanation in the article?

I don't think it can get much clearer than "Crown Dependency of Forvik is a micronation". Now say someone who has never heard of micronations read that - I see two possibilities. Either the person thinks A) "I have never heard of that word, maybe I should check the link to understand the definition" or B) "I think I know the definition of micronation, therefore I shall continue reading without checking the link". You can apply this idea to any article that begins with: "ARTICLE SUBJECT" is a "LINKED NOUN".

Here is the point: it would be pointless to go through every micronation article and create a paragraph on what a micronation is and why the title does not apply legally when we can summarise it easily in the word "micronation" along with a link. If the reader does not want to research the topic or the definition, that is not our fault - after all we have defined what the Crown Dependency of Forvik is in a simple, short sentence along with a link so that the reader can easily locate a detailed definition along with more information. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In nearly 6 years as a WP contributor I've seen no evidence that the project is in danger of being overwhelmed by a tidal wave of confusion over terminology to the extent that we need to preface each micronation article with an essay defining what "micronation" means. Bluelinks seem to work perfectly well. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you needed to 'preface' anything, or define micronation. What I am suggesting is adding something to say the "Letter to QE2" section such as "Forvik is not a Crown Dependency in the formal sense as this requires a claim of possession by The Crown and the appointment of a Chief Minister." The way it reads at present an uninformed reader might imagine otherwise. I think we are all clear the claims are a legal fiction and I can't see any reason not to make that explicit. Ben MacDui 13:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you might want to see legal status of Sealand. If your going to try to debunk Stuart Hill's claim, then it needs to be neutral, it needs to present the facts, and it needs references. I'm not saying that Stuart Hill's claims and letters are legal fact, it would be very unlikely, but if you want to add that to the article, you'll need to be specific and provide references. If you do think there is any information to be added, then please add it and we can discuss the changes here. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What we need to do is find - and cite - a jurist who has published an opinion that says "this is a legal fiction without a hope in hell of being sustained by any court in the real world". I'm sure I did actually read something to that effect somewhere - but I'll be damned if I can find it now. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention there is something really WRONg with the coordinates as stated, let alone linked to the Mapping service.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.89.179 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving comment

This was the only contribution at the redirected Talk:Stuart Hill (sailor) page:

==Redirects== Given recent heated discussion on topics associated with this I've reverted the recent unilateral redirect of this page until a consensus on the matter can be established - and if a consensus to merge is established, until data here that's not present in any related articles can be merged into those articles. --[[User:Gene Poole|Gene_poole]] ([[User talk:Gene Poole|talk]]) 01:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

--Mais oui! (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference 10 - civil service guidelines

I cannot see how this backs up the text. I am inclined to remove it as it misleads. --maxrspct ping me 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference 8 - History of the Monarchy

Link provided does not go to a unique page and a search of the site for "forvik" results in nothing, I cannot see how this backs up the text (which may be right but would be arrived at by using OR).163.1.147.64 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Martin Clunes

Martin Clunes' TV Series (ITV, Sun 3rd May) featured Forvik and its owner, but without actually trying to see if Hill has any basis for his claim.

IMO since Shetland has always been represented in the Scottish, British and United Kingdom parliaments, whilst crown dependencies such as the Isle of Man and Jersey have not, it is not a Crown Dependency.There is of course the intriguing possibility that the Danish crown might repay its debt - but that wouldn't result in Shetland or Forvik becoming independent.....

Exile (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nickname

I've twice removed his nickname from this article as irrelevant. He has his own article where it is clearly marked there, in the very first line. We link his article. It is not in reliable sources as being relevant to the topic of the article nor is it clear how his nickname is important to the Crown Dependency of Forvik. The latest reversion of my removal has comment of "I think it is relevant - many people would only know him by this name" - I can't see how it is relevant, and can't see its relevancy in any reliable sources - if it is relevant it should appear in multiple reliable sources showing the connection - I couldn't find any. That many people only know him (do many people know him at all - under any name?) by his nickname is irrelevant - his real name is used in the sources for his formation/founding (whatever) not his nickname and we link to his article at his real name. Many people only know William as a bastard but our article on Normandy doens't point out his well known nickname. Ian Kilmister's article is at Lemmy as that is his most common name, per the guidance on naming topics, if his nickname were the better known, his article should be moved there. It's use here appears to be nothing more than a factoid to insert to disparage his character - it has no relevance to the topic.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It is in the first line precisely because it is a name that is used frequently. Of the citations here that refer to him by name here I make it 3:1 for Calamity vs Hill. I see the Shetland Times has taken to the more polite version "Maverick campaigner Stuart Hill" but most national news outlets are less circumspect. It is in any case an aspect of the micronation article we should not ignore. Whether you think it is an act of genius or lunacy the fact that the UDI has been made by a man with a history of unusual behaviour and has a sobriquet to match is surely worth recording. There is certainly a case to be made for moving the SH article, although BLPs are a touchy subject these days. Ben MacDui 12:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I accept that the one local paper repeatedly calls him "Stuart “Cap­tain Calamity” Hill". Which sources show it as an aspect of CDoF, I didn't see any. It doesn't matter what I think - nor what you think, what matters is what the reliable sources say about CDoF - do they tie up his nickname with it? I didn't see that they did. Regardless of that, his sobriquet is recorded - on his own article about the person, and as I said above, his article is at his proper name, if it is the case he is much better known by the nickname, per Lemmy, his article should be moved, which you say there is a case for. The better solution for this article about the CDoF would be to call him "Stuart “Cap­tain Calamity” Hill" at the first instance of his name appearing, linking it through to the article about him. As for it being an aspect we cant't ignore - only if that is so in the sources. I just don't see that. What about his boat, how is that connected? - neither of the BBC articles mention Forvik at all so why they are being used to cite his name and boat here I don't know. I repeat this article is about Forvik, we have an article about the man. The two should keep focus on what is in the sources for each.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: The only mainstream source where his nickname is put alongside Forvik is the Telegraph one (used twice so we can sharpen that up) and then it's to give us the history that he settled on the island - we're not using it like that in the article, if it's important, as you say it is, then we should use it the same way (and it should be in multiple reliable sources - is it? I see lots of local news making the bulk of the article).--163.1.147.64 (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If we identify the man by a significantly used nickname in order to identify who he is to the reader, I do not see this as detrimental to the page. A sidenote: Are not most news sources in the Shetlands "local"? Outback the koala (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's detrimental if it's not being used as it is used in the source, which it isn't. Do the two BBC sources mention Forvik? No they don't - so there we are conducting WP:SYNTH by adding them up as we are. Yup I would say Shetland Times is local news, whether it is a reliable source would be up to the RS notice board to firmly decide.--163.1.147.64 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Adding conflict of interest tag because this article has been written entirely by those involved in trying to establish Forvik as an independent state. The island is not recognised by any country or any official body; the lands are not even owned by the man proposing to declare it as a separate country. Numerous new accounts have been set up for the purposes of editing this page to legitimise its existence. No idea how it survived AfD. The nation exists entirely in the mind of Stuart Hill, its 'founder'. I declare no conflict of interest in writing this statement. 86.183.247.85 (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)