Talk:Principality of Hutt River
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An event in this article is a April 21 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
This page is not NPOV. Nobody takes the HRP seriously, and I suspect some of the claims are flat-out wrong. I'll be revising this shortly, as soon as I've dug up the relevant AUSLIG map. --Robert Merkel 00:18 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)
- You should read the original version - I almost fell out of my chair laughing. --mav
-
- Yes, the HRP is pretty funny, but I'd just like it so that *everybody* gets the joke. See deadpan humor and Australian English--Robert Merkel 01:05 Jan 6, 2003 (UTC)
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the HRP has been recognised by the Vatican. Can anyone confirm/deny this? --Paul A 09:09 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
___ Previously it was seen as a joke, but a lot of Australians admire HRP for thumbing their noses at Authority. The HRP, while not recognised, has been for all intensive purposes an independant sovereign state doing its own thing for more then 30 years now. Papal recognition - the Prince has had an audience with the pope, but I don't think it has been recognised by anyone. The HRP traditionally supports the rights of smaller nations. Bernie Lyons 30/11/03
Why is the whole list of other micronations required here under "see also"? Why not just link to micronation? Gzornenplatz 01:00, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Because there is no longer a dedicated article that includes an aggregated list of all micronations that have Wikipedia articles, and it is very likely that anyone researching one will also be interested in the others. If such a list doesn't appear on each micronation article page, then it should certainly appear in the "see also" section of the Micronation article. --Gene_poole 01:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The Micronation article lists (and links to, where applicable) the various micronations under various headings. A repeat list under "see also" is unnecessary. Gzornenplatz 02:09, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Now that there is a micronation category listing, I agree. --Gene_poole
Contents |
[edit] External Links
I have restored the external link Coins of the Hutt River Province deleted maliciously by Gzornenplatz. The URL links to a website authored by myself which constitutes the only complete catalogue of Hutt River Province coins in existence. The site was cited and quoted extensively in this context by "Australasian Coin & Banknote Colectors Magazine" (August, 2003 edition), and is obviously of relevance to the article.--Gene_poole 23:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- That link is a further attempt by Gene Poole at advertising his "Empire of Atlantium". The "Imperial Collection" website conflates very real and important former secessionist states like Biafra and Katanga with the "Empire of Atlantium" (which consists of Gene Poole's apartment), as if this were somehow comparable. This must be considered misinformation, and it is therefore not an acceptable link. Gzornenplatz 11:39, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
I have again restored the external link Coins of the Hutt River Province vandalised by Gzornenplatz. The URL links to a website authored by myself which constitutes the only complete catalogue of Hutt River Province coins in existence. The site was cited and quoted extensively in this context by "Australasian Coin & Banknote Colectors Magazine" (August, 2003 edition), and is obviously of relevance to the article. --Gene_poole 12:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
The part under "Statistics" where it says that Hutt River never actually seceeded is not NPOV. It should say something along the lines of, never recognized as seceeded by the government of Australia, as it says elsewhere. The idea that secession must be recognized by external bodies or other sovereign states is not a neutral point of view. Can someone properly adjust this?
- This article is in need of a major overhaul, and I am intending to get around to it eventually, but there's also [[]]nothing to stop you from making any changes you think are appropriate.--Gene_poole 22:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Hutt River Province Principality is a legitimate country.
The Hutt River Province Principality has been a legitimate country since it became independent on the 21st of April 1970 (Queen Elizabeth II's birthday), so therefore, it qualifies for full membership of the British Commonwealth, as does the Republic of Somaliland. - (Aidan Work 06:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC))
- The Hut RIver PP is as much a country as Disneyland is. ;) --Qwertypoiuy 02:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Disneyland is not a country, whereas, the Hutt River Province Principality is. So, you are wrong there, Qwertypoiuy. - (Aidan Work 06:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
-
-
- Hutt River Province is not and has never been a "country". It is a business that pretends to be a country - and does so very effectively. --Gene_poole 21:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
-
Gene_poole, you are not correct. It is not a business masquerading as a country. The Hutt River Province Principality does qualify for recognition as a British Commonwealth country, as Prince Leonard I has found a British Act of Parliament which entitled him to declare independence from both Australia & Western Australia. - (Aidan Work 02:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC))
- In that case I will look forward to seeing Hutt River take up its seat at the next CHOGM conference. I think there's one coming up in Brisbane fairly soon. Funny that they've waited 36 years to do so; maybe they're just a bit slow. --Gene_poole 02:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Micronation
- (I'm pasting this into the talk page of all the micronation category articles.)
I've just started a template for the micronation infobox, based on the Sealand box. I've also written usage guidelines on it's talk page. I'd like to please invite any interested people to go over its talk page to discuss the template itself, along with my guidelines. As a demo of the template, please see Lovely (micronation), which I just edited to use the template. --Billpg 23:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Affect on wheat dispute
What affect, if any, did micronationhood have on the dispute about wheat quotas? Andjam 13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- None. The Casley family simply switched to another source of income - tourism. I understand they also have a healthy business selling wildflowers to Japan. --Gene_poole 06:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] British Law
What is this loophole that he found? I want to see what he read and how he interpreted it because I'm very curiuos about this. Maybe you could put it in a seprate section?
[edit] Sign of weakness
Shouldn't every country reinforce its souvereignity? The territorial integrity must be protected at all cost or the country falls apart. Therefore the army should be sent in just like WACO. I can't see how this is different from the chechens trying to get out of Russia and getting the shit cluster bombed out of them until they smarten up. 195.70.32.136 09:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Legitimacy
This article is really a bit misleading on the legitimacy of this thing. For starters, it's really not well known. And it's obviously not a real country in any meaningful way. So to mention that there is no "standing army" is sort of like mentioning that Mickey Mouse does not own any property in the US. Suggest a less credulous tone to the article. Stevage 11:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually it is very well known. With 49,000 Google results it seems to be about on par with Sealand (with 54,000). But I agree that the article needs some serious NPOVing. --Centauri 03:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
This etire article is laughable in the extreme. It speaks about the HRPP as if everyone in Australia knows about it or even cares or admires it/him etc. Those over 40 may remeber it in passing, but 49,000 Google hits (from who knows where) does not mean it is well known. I'd hazard a guess that if I asked anyone on the street in the CBD today they wouldn't have a clue. To add that this, saying it's as well known as "Sealand", I've never even heard of that...while the only reaon I know of THRPP is because it's a standing joke amoungst oldies.
I'd love to see this supposed section of English law that provides THRPP a loohole... because if it were indeed true (which it is not) then countless hordes of others would do the same to alos avoid paying tax.
Gimmick and tourist attraction at best, and has always been regarded as such by the general public, or the small amount that do know of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.10.111.39 (talk • contribs) .
- Please try to be constructive with your comments. Andjam 14:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Unfortunately, it's the truth. I would suggest that while the general opinion of people that know about it would be "good on them for sticking it to authority", approximately no-one outside the HRP takes Prince Leonard for an actual head of state or his country to be anything deserving serious diplomatic recognition; the subject of a The Castle-esque comedy film, not a documentary. Emcee N 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- So what's your point? --Centauri 08:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- nup. NPOV means NEUTRAL POINT OF VEIW. it also means listing other points of view. so, list everyones opinion. btw, i feel the whole article isnt NPOV like this: "Hutt River Province Principality is Australia's oldest micronation.". thats a POV issue. some regard it as a proper nation. i do. the whole article is too NPOV for my liking. Alexander101010 13:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- NPOV does mean that every minor personal opinion on a subject can or should be listed. It means that data is presented in a values-neutral manner, based on verifiable sources. Nobody of any importance regards Hutt River as a "proper nation". The general international consensus, supported in dozens of printed sources, is that it's a micronation. --Gene_poole 11:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Copyright violation
An anonymous contributor added this text, and said it was copied from huttriver.net. Unfortunately, that is not permitted. Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, and unless the text you're copying is licensed under the GFDL, you're not permitted to add it to Wikipedia. I've removed the text, and I need to check to see if the diff needs to be removed by an admin, as well. Captainktainer * Talk 11:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Treason Act 1495?
This article states that the founder claimed legitimacy under the Treason Act 1495. That article only says that a person fighting for the de facto king cannot be prosecuted for treason for fighting against the de jure king. What does that have to do with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the HRPP? Is there some other section to the Act that relates to this sort of thing? Nik42 01:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- The Treason Act is apparently relevant because Australian constitutional law is derived in part from British law. Hutt River claims that Leonard Casley was declared a prince under the terms of this act so that he could not be prosecuted while his initial confrontation with the WA government was happening. --Gene_poole 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Prince Leonard" is well-known in Australia
I doubt this is true, and another fact is that lots of people seem not to know of the place. Enlil Ninlil 09:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)