Talk:Principality of Hutt River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Principality of Hutt River is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 4 February 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

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)

Actually it is true. Articles about Prince Leonard have appeared in Australian newspapers and women's magazines, and on current affairs and general interest shows, with monotonous regularity, for decades. There's been an exhibit about the guy in the National Museum for over half a decade. Like it or not, he's a well-known part of Australia's popular culture. --Gene_poole 22:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
as well known as Rove, or the crock hunter, not likely. More like Bernard King. Still I dont think he is that popular or known. Enlil Ninlil 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know about it. I'm Australian. I read too ^_^. The problem is its a weaselly statement with no back up (unless you can produce a survey of modern Australia showing it, or maybe it occurs on 20 to 1 or something) --ZayZayEM 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's no more weasly a statement than "the Sydney Harbour Bridge is commonly referred to as 'the Coathanger'. Facts of this nature don't end up being documented in National Museums unless they're pretty well known. It's pretty ridiculous to suggest we can't include uncontroversial statements of this nature in Wikipedia unless someone's done a survey to gauge the popularity of public figure A angainst public figure B. --Gene_poole 03:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is asking for a National Museum to use it. It just needs to backed up by something. It isn't an uncontraversial statement. It's being disputed. I think you'll find "coathanger" mentioned in many-a-touristresource --ZayZayEM 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
He's a two-point "intermediate" question in the Age's "Superquiz" of November 30, 2006. A search of Australian newspapers in Factiva turns up 16 articles, total. He's not unknown, but he's hardly a household name. It's hardly strong evidence to claim him as "very well known". --Robert Merkel 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I hardly think Factiva is an authoritative source. There were literally dozens of news and magazine articles on file in the State Library of NSW when I last researched the subject - and that was in the mid 1980s. There are probably 100s now. Steve Irwin he aint, but he's certainly an iconic figure. I think you also missed the point about the National Museum - he already has an exhibit about him there - it's been there for a least half a decade. --Gene_poole 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to look at keeping the paragraph however changing "well-known" to something less direct. I believe many Australians know of the situation and have heard of Prince Leonard, however "well-known" implies wide knowledge of Prince Leonard; I disagree that most Australians could tell me more than vague points of information about the situation (I certainly didn't know much about it until happening upon this article). I think a solution to this conflict could be to change the paragraph to something like...

Many Australians are somewhat familiar with the Principality of Hutt River and know of "Prince Leonard". Some Australians view him affectionately as a harmless eccentric who admire his tenacity in taking on "big government", while others believe him to be looking for a fight where none exists. He is the subject of a permanent exhibit at the National Museum of Australia, in Canberra.[citation needed]

...or along those lines anyway. I don't believe most Australians admire him for "taking on big government" and that's a statement that I doubt could be proven. Thoughts? --DanielBC [talkcontribstats] 06:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your suggested changes are pretty reasonable. It's not true that "most Australians" admire his stance. It would be more accurate to state that many of those who are aware of him view his actions with something approaching sympathic wry amusement. --Gene_poole 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the paragraph. --DanielBC [talkcontribstats] 01:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tags and External Links

I've added various clean up tags simply because I find it hard to take this article seriously in the form it is currently presented. There are some very large claims made by this article, and thus it needs concrete sources to back them up. Primary sources are not acceptable for an article as controversial as this one.

If someone feels the need to swap the dispute tags with less dramatic ones, I wouldn't object. --AtD 14:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the tags, although I have combined them to {totally-disputed}. Some claims are wild and not backed up by anything - in this particular situation I am a fan of "Prove it or lose it" (back up everything on a controversial article with NPOV sources - that means no sources from the HRP sites, they are not NPOV), and I have started removing some of the most disputed statements. --DanielBC [talkcontribstats] 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work, Daniel. Already the article is a lot more NPOV, especially in the first few paragraphs. A general question: Why are there so many 'official' web sites listed in the External Links section? Surely there's only one. What does that make of the rest, and which one is the real one? --AtD 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The Hutt River "government" is a pretty confused and confusing beast. Over the years lots of people have been authorised to produce "official" websites in various parts of the world. This is pretty characteristic of the way Hutt River operates. --Gene_poole 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added when they appear to be last updated to the list and tried to describe them a little to avoid confusion. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more "official websites" out there, AtD --DanielBC [talkcontribstats] 06:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Is having listed the Delegations of Hutt River to the US and Germany in the external links NPOV? Is there any evidence that either the US or Germany recognise the HRP? Is it verifiable that they're legitimate web pages? If not, what does that make of these so called representatives? --AtD 01:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point, AtD. I don't think its POV necessarily, well any more POV than having the home-page link anyway, but perhaps it should be mentioned if we cannot find any official comment by the USA or Germany Governments? --DanielBC [talkcontribstats] 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's POV to refer to them as "delegations" - after all, anyone can send a delegation anywhere, if they so desire. It's not a legally defined term. Having said that I think "representative office" might be a better choice of term here. --Gene_poole 00:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --DanielBC [talkcontribstats] 02:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/i/Talk%7EPrincipality_of_Hutt_River_6c6e.html"