Talk:Sark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

As an illustration for the history section images of the WWII-cannon and the 16th century cannon in the Seigneurie gardens might be useful. I have a photo of the latter, but I cannot find I photo where the inscription is readable. The photos of the Seigneurie are also not quite perfect; I think a photo from this or a similar perspective might be better to show the different historical parts the house consists of.--Hannesde Correct me! 09:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Politics[edit]

First sentence is a bit incomprehensible ... what is "reenfeoffing", a typo? a bit of peculiar rare sarkish french? the reference to parcels is confusing too. I'd edit it, but I don't know much about Sark ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.241.196 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Linked to Enfeoffment for clarity. Parcel is ordinary English property-speak, but I think the explanation in the section about Tenants makes it clear enough. Unless anyone else thinks otherwise? Man vyi (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A question[edit]

There is something wrong with the following passage:

"Mervyn Peake, the Anglo-Chinese writer best known for his Gormenghast trilogy........"

Mervyn Peake was born to British parents. The description of Anglo-Chinese will imply that he is a Chinese-British citizen, which is not the case.

User:Siyac 16:43, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

The settled white European population in India were always known as Anglo-Indian, so Anglo-Chinese seems perfectly reasonable for someone born to the British community in China. Esquimo 11:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Coverage on NPR[edit]

I just heard a report about Sark on the public radio show All Things Considered. I was zoned out until the end, but it sounded interesting. Check it out: "Tiny British Island Swaps Feudalism for Democracy" -- Crnk Mnky 23:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent change in arrangements[edit]

We need to write this up. – Kaihsu 11:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is already some description in the article. – Kaihsu 11:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

Sark is used as name of a feudal planet in Isaac Asimov's novel The Currents of Space.

Vanamond

Tax immigrants[edit]

Someone put that template behind the sentece that says that there are not many tax immigrants. The fact is from an email from the Seigneur he sent me when I had asked him for informtion about the island to improve this and the German article. He looked at this page (the then actual version) and found it "very inaccurate"; one of the things he wrote was "Change of language has nothing to do with tax exiles of which we have very few". So this is where the information ist from.--Hun2 12:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The last time I visited Sark, I saw plenty of tax exiles, and the locals were complaining about how they didn't mix. If you have a population of a few hundred and 20-50 people arrive, this may be a small number, but not amongst a few hundred. --MacRusgail 17:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC) p.s. I wouldn't totally trust the Seigneurie, they have their own agendas, and their claims concerning the island often don't hold water when researched. Dame Sybil's comments were particularly bogus.
I changed the sentence.--Hun2de Correct me! 10:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Nothing personal, but is there some other source other than a conversation with the Seigneur (an official notice or some external source or something) that qualified under Wikipedia:Reliable sources? I removed your cite attempt. Until there's some source for the claim itself, it doesn't belong (or needs a {{fact}}) I simply removed it. Let's have a source for the claim first and then it can be discussed further. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There are not 20-50 tax migrants but there are a lot of people who come from England as hotel or restaurant staff or carriage drivers, and a lot of people who come to be employed at the Sark school as teachers and then stay on - they often come from England or Jersey. (La.coupee (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

Sèrtchiais?[edit]

Is Sèrtchiais the same as Sercquiais? --AW 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously so, see Sercquiais --Ratzer (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not bite at folks who ask questions. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It was meant straight and serious and to the point. I didn't know whether user Awiseman had checked for the existence of a Wikipedia article Sercquiais, so I did, and I thought it would help him if I pointed him to it, since I saw Sèrtchiais being used as a synonym for Sercquiais. Since I didn't check any further sources, I qualified my response as "obviously", rather than "certainly".--Ratzer (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand. It's just that words look different in print than they sound in person accompanied by a reassuring smile. (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Victor Hugo[edit]

Can anyone contribute some info about the author Victor Hugo? He is supposed to have lived on Sark for a while (at Dixcart Hotel) and I believe he wrote some of Les Miserables while living there. A cave on Sark is named after him. Twoquidtunes 06:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Clameur de haro[edit]

This is taken from the French version of the Clameur de haro page: 'En Sercq, le plaignant doit, en face du témoin, se découvrir la tête, s'agenouiller, réciter "Haro, haro, haro! Au nom de Dieu et de la Reine, laissez ce travail...", et le Notre Père (en français)'.

This conflicts with what the English version of this page quotes. Can someone confirm which is correct? I fear—in spite of the French Sark page saying otherwise—it is the French page, given the fact that it cites the "on me fait tort" version as being used on the other Channel Islands.LaFoiblesse 02:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources appear contradictory. The official Sark website seems to say that the Sark version is identical with the Jersey version. Lemprière's Customs, Ceremonies & Traditions of the Channel Islands 1976 ISBN 0709158424 states that the words are different and gives the English translation (but not the original) as "Haro! Haro! Haro! In the name of God and of the Queen leave this work on the demand of ... who prevents you". According to Lemprière the Lord's Prayer is not a requirement in Sark. Man vyi 06:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The end of the section seems to contradict itself; saying that the last time this legal device was used was 1970 and then saying that is has been used since then. I think what is meant is that the last time it was used on Sark was 1970 but it has since been used on other islands. I have no idea what is correct however, perhaps somebody else can clarify this small point of confusion?Eoag (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just updated this bit as one occurred in 1989(?) or later - I can't recall precisely but I was there! It will be registered with the Greffe Office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.104.112 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sark abolishes the last remaining feudal system in Europe[edit]

No, Sark! Don't quit now, you can keep it up. We believe in you! Don't let feudalism die. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.164.104 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

omg this article is so funny especially about a guy who invaded it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.234.155 (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Feudalism??[edit]

If anybody had bothered to read the article about feudalism that is linked to you soon realise that such a massive and disputed label could never been applied to a tiny island in the 21st century, regardless of how undemocratic this system may seem Quee1797 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The label is attributed to a source. Perhaps you may wish to take this up with the source. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
There really was/is no such thing as feudalism anyway. It was a convenient label adopted in the 18th century for a whole host of historical systems that really had very little in common. --86.135.178.171 (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am having a whack at that term in the Introduction, so make of it what you will. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ia m sure you know better than historians, but if you could get a few to back up that claim, it would be nice. Rds865 (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Like i said the feudalism article has plenty of sources that back-up what i said, just because the media bandy the term around doesn't mean it becomes a legitimate term to you in intellectual articles Quee1797 (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Feudalism can mean many things: (i) a legal system of land tenure, where there is a holder of allodial title (usually the Sovereign) and a chain of feudal tenants and subtenants. The feudal lease typically contains "feudal" obligations such as the payment of poulage and tithes, the performance of military duty etc. and the lease (even a lease in perpetuity) is subject to forfeit even if the slightest of these obligations is not met, and (ii) a legal system where there are several classes of individuals some of which enjoy privileged treatment under the law either by virtue of birth of by virtue of having had them conferred on them by the sovereign body (typically the Sovereign). Such privileges can - but need not - include the right to sit in a governing council or legislature, (iii) mounted knights in shining armour roaming the countryside, taking part in jousting matches and skewering the serfs on their spears for fun, (iv) no doubt many other romantic notions various people today have of what constitutes feudalism.

All the above characteristics are entirely independent of each other.

As for condition (i), Sark certainly meets it, but it is an arrangement which can arise in any free market. It cannot arise in modern-day social economies where land contracts are highly regulated and such arrangements either cannot be made or can be made but are not stable (e.g. tenants can enfranchise their leases and forcibly remove intermediate landowners from the chain). This says more about Sark being a pure free market economy and valuing individual liberty and the freedom to contract and the rest of the world being socialist and statist than about Sark being feudal.

As for condition (ii) this is normally simplified to "In democracy, your vote counts and in feudalism, your count votes". On Sark this definition (with a small exception to be mentioned later) never applied. It is true that until 2008, there was a class of people called the Tenants who were called feudal members of Chief Pleas who - it is being constantly repeated - enjoyed that right as of right. In actual fact, the situation was more subtle. When Sark was first settled in 1565, it was settled by 40 families, each of whom was given an (in 1611 made indivisible) parcel of land and the right to be represented in parliament by the head of the family. This was a hugely democratic arrangement. In order to ensure the Island continued to be governed by people who lived locally, the right to attend Chief Pleas was not held personally but was attached to each of the 40 parcels of land and enjoyed by the owner - or, as was commonly the case (and is still commonly the case), by the (joint) ownerS. So if a Tenant sold up and left, the next Tenant would acquire the right to sit in Chief Pleas. Where more than one person jointly owned the piece of land (Tenement), they had to agree - in effect, elect - which of them was going to attend Chief Pleas. Thus, the right to attend legislature was never of a feudal, hereditary, nature as it was, for example, in the case of the British House of Lords, where the title - and the right to attend Parliament - was a personal, hereditary, privilege granted by the Sovereign. On Sark it was a private property right to vote in a particular constituency transferrable and acquirable by private individuals in the free market by transferring their interest in particular parcels of land without the intervention of the Sovereign or any other privileged individual. Such a land transfer also entailed the transfer of certain obligations (such as the obligation to defend a specific cotil - part of coastline attached to a Tenement). Thus, the government system was never feudal in nature but was always democratic. This is quite a subtle point which the UK administration completely failed to grasp when they forced the constitutional reform of 2008 on Sark.

I shall not speak about conditions (iii) etc. because - even though this is the most common sort of thing people associate with feudalism - Sark of course never had anything to do with them. (La.coupee (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

Sorry I forgot to mention the promised slight exception. The feudal Seigneur always had a hereditary birthright to sit in Chief Pleas and to appoint the Seneschal, the President of Chief Pleas. This right was granted by the Sovereign, although even here it has to be said that the Seigneur may transfer the fief to any private purchaser he pleases, and must with it transfer all the feudal privileges such as the right to sit in Chief Pleas and to appoint the Seneschal. Such a transfer of ownership is subject to the Sovereign's consent. The Seigneur retains these rights even today, after the 2008 Reform Law, more or less as he did before (except that the Seneschal is now appointed for life, whereas before the Seigneur appointed him every 3 years). Because the Seigneur's rights are rights transferrable in the free market, it is again debatable if they are feudal rights. However, to the extent they are, feudalism continues to exist on Sark to precisely the same extent it did before the 2008 Reform Law. (La.coupee (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

Demonym[edit]

What would the inhabitants of Sark be called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.177.103 (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A Sarkee or a Sercquiais, according to preference. Man vyi (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any sources? I've heard Sarkee, but also Sarksonian and Sarkrinian, as well as just Sark. Unfortunately there is no information in the CIA World Factbook on Sark. Mwahcysl (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the noun Sarkee is a false back-formation from the adjective and noun Sarkese, which is an anglicised form of Sercquiais. Sercquiais itself is definitely an official term, e.g. as used in the Société Serquiaise (many, many references in Google).--Molly Mockford (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Sarkee would be a plausible anglicisation of Serkyee (per Liddicoat orthography), without having to go via Sarkese. The Dictiounnaire Angllais-Guernesiais gives "Sarkese" in English for noun and adjective. The English-Jersey Language Vocabulary and Dictionnaithe Jèrriais-Angliais give "Sarkman" for the noun (improbably enough); both the Dictionnaithe Jèrriais-Angliais and Dictionnaithe Angliais-Jèrriais give "Sarkese" as adjective. Liddicoat's Lexicon dodges the issue by defining Serkyee as a "male inhabitant of Sark" (the feminine being Serkyeez) Man vyi (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Invasion[edit]

Did the invader fire any shots? what was his motivation, did he have any chance of success? Rds865 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The info is in the link. If you think it should be added to the article, feel free. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin McE has edited the Invasion Attempt section, saying 'Source clearly states that Gardes "turned up one night with a little posse", so not alone'. However, I am afraid that the source (Michael Beaumont, the Seigneur) was wrong in this interview - Gardes was indeed alone, there was no posse. I was on the island at the time, which Michael was not; I saw Gardes the day before his arrest (he arrived on the island in the daytime, not at night); I've since talked with the then Constable and Vingtenier about him; the whole island was buzzing with information at the time; and there was absolutely no suggestion that he was not alone. Now, I know I should not alter an article based on my own personal knowledge - but can anybody come up with any reference apart from that interview which suggests that Gardes was not alone? If not, I intend to revert the article to refer to a one-person invasion attempt. Molly Romanov 09:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molly Romanov (talkcontribs)

If this is an invasion, I wonder what new word we need to create to describe the WWII landing of Allied forces at the Battle of Normandy. lol. Jyg (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Huzzah![edit]

The Middle Ages are finally over! And we're already past the millennium! Time's-a wastin...204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

André Gardes[edit]

I merged this article into here as the individual is not notable outside of the context of the article and very little is known about him that could be used to expand his article. Million_Moments (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I did the merge in 2008 when that movie wasn't released :) You're welcome to recreate the article if you like. Million_Moments (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
However, since the film-makers' own web site at http://ben326.wixsite.com/island-movie/page2 says: "The Man Who Tried To Steal An Island, is a fictionalized account of the tragi-comic life of Andre Gardes​​", I don't think that the film can be relied upon as a Wikipedia source. --[[User:Molly Romanov|Molly Romanov]] (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

United Kingdom[edit]

I thought these 'governments' such as Sark, Jersey and so on made a big fuss that they ar eNOT part of the UK. But they are certainly (rightly) classified under this heading here as the UK provides them with defence and foreign representation and smiles benignly on their odd banking systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.119.105 (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the events of World War II, I think claiming that the UK "provides them with defence" might be a bit of a sore point. When was the last attempted invasion that the UK took some part in repelling? 92.39.200.36 (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
the prhasing there reflecits the state of affairs officially betwen Sark and the UK, no the artctual effects of it. The UK technicaly i s in charge of Sark when it comes to miliary defense and foreign affairs, as evidenced bythe national ukgov website. Smith Jones (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

St Peter's Church[edit]

Do anyone know who are the people that is buried in St Peter's church..anybody particular famous? I last visited there in 1994 and there was somebody there I can't remember!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.128.63 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're probably thinking of Dennis Price. --Molly Mockford (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge Little Sark[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am withdrawing my suggestion to merge Sark and Little Sark. Based on the excellent work of User:Grutness, I now believe Little Sark deserves its own article. All the initial !votes were made while Little Sark was a very short stub and all material was duplicated in Sark.  LinguistAtLargeMsg  00:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Little Sark should be redirected to Sark. Little Sark contains no unique information that is not contained in Sark, and it looks unlikely that enough information could be gathered to make it a stand-alone article. Since Little Sark is actually a peninsula of Sark, the best place for this information is within the Sark article. My redirect of Little Sark to Sark was reverted with no explanation by User:MacRusgail, who also reverted a redirect created by another user in April 2008.  LinguistAtLarge  18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree. There doesn't seem to be any logical reason not to redirect Little Sark here. Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. I concur with Kaldari and Linguist's reasoning. Terrakyte (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. Even the pictures are the same. Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC).
  • Agree. Million_Moments (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. There's little that can be said of Little Sark that isn't applicable to Sark and vice versa. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree. I agree with all the other agrees for merging
  • Agree. It's not even a separate island, it's a sub-section of Sark!Ryoung122 11:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  1. Can we mergre it now??? Come on... Smith Jones (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)!Smith Jones (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The reasoning in the suggestion above is invalid on several counts.
    1. Little Sark contains no unique information that is not contained in Sark, and it looks unlikely that enough information could be gathered to make it a stand-alone article. I feel certain that enough information could be gathered to make this a stand-alone article of some worth. The fact that there is information repeated is more a reason to excise the information from the Sark article, which is big enough without it, than to redirect this article to the Sark article. There is certainly far more information here than there is in many articles on places that "aren't even islands". It is considerably larger, for instance, than the article on Saint Aubin, Jersey, larger than several of the articles on individual Jersey parishes, and considerably larger than almost every article on Jersey's vigntaines. It is also equally easily expandable (I've added some 40% to its length today without really looking very hard for info)
    2. Since Little Sark is actually a peninsula of Sark, the best place for this information is within the Sark article. This is no more a valid reason to merge than saying "Because Sark is actually part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the best place for this information is within the Bailiwick of Guernsey article." Almost every place that has a Wikipedia article can be considered as part of a larger place with an article - its status as such is certainly no indication that a merger is called for.
    3. My redirect of Little Sark to Sark was reverted... surely the fact that it was reverted was evidence that another user found it worthwhile having the information separate. It has also been reverted once by another user, User:Paukrus, so there seems to be some additional opposition to the suggested merger. I too find it better as a separate article - had I found this suddenly merged into the article on Sark, I would also have reverted it in this way. Grutness...wha? 03:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Follow-up to the above: ... it looks unlikely that enough information could be gathered to make it a stand-alone article - I've extended the article to three times the length it was with very little effort. There is plenty of information availavble which can make this a fine stand-alone article (it's already beyond being a stub). Merging would have been a very lazy option indeed when all that was required was a tiny bit of research. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with keeping all three articles separate (Sark, Little Sark and La Coupée) or with keeping Sark and Little Sark and merging La Coupée with Little Sark. When I started this merger proposal, both Little Sark and La Coupée were very short articles, with all information duplicated in the Sark article. I wanted some discussion here so we could reach consensus on the issue. It would seem more people lean toward merging the articles. You have also done a good job expanding Little Sark, and if the additional material can be verified with reliable sources, I have no problem with keeping it as a separate article. Let's let this discussion go a while longer and see if consensus can be reached.  LinguistAtLarge  18:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hm. I would have said it was pretty reasonably referenced, especially given that the sources I used were for the most part reliable and verifiable. Never mind - I have changed one general reference to several inline ones, and added a load more info (with references) - it's now four and a half times the size it was when this discussion started, making it about a quarter of the size of the article on Sark itself - merging would likely grossly unbalance the article on Sark as a result. As to wanting some discussion on the issue, surely it would have been far better to see whether the article could be expanded first rather than simply claiming that it should be merged because it couldn't be expanded. (By the way, it wasn't me who removed the merge notice on the page - whoever did so seems to have thought that it wasn't a viable merger candidate). Grutness...wha? 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Grutness ahas done a lot of work to expand Little Sark and designate it as a separate/disntict area within the realm of the Sark. Terefore, i am in the firm belief that it can stand alone as two separate articles as far as WP:VWP:N&WP:SNOWSmith Jones (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Merge La Coupée[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I have merged La Coupée with Little Sark per consensus reached here.  LinguistAtLargeMsg  01:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

La Coupée is a narrow strip of land connecting Little Sark to Sark. All information in the La Coupée article is already extant in the Sark article. I see no reason for a separate article, and propose that La Coupée be a redirect to Sark.  LinguistAtLarge  06:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Agreed on both La Coupée and Little Sark. PKT(alk) 13:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Also agreed on both.--Molly Mockford (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree strongly. There simply isn't enough to be said about La Coupée to sustain a separate article. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed on both La Coupée and Little Sark.
  • This should be merged into the stand-alone article on Little Sark - it would make sense there, since it is intrinsic to the peninsula as its isthmus. It would also fill out a little more information for the Little Sark article, making it even more obvious that the peninsula is large enough for its own article. Grutness...wha? 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Article Assessment[edit]

I rated the article "C" class today - it might qualify for "B" but I haven't evaluated against the B criteria. I also changed the importance for the UK Wikiproject from High to Mid - I just don't see how a territory this small should be of High importance to the UK. PKT(alk) 16:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Barclay brothers?[edit]

I would think that the recent election, and the Barclay brothers deserve mention. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5372504.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1. Dchudz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC).

It gets mentioned in the general election article. Personally, I think the reaction of the Barclay's is appalling, and puerile in the highest degree. They abolish a feudal state in order to create their own fiefdom, and when they don't get their own way, they threaten to take their bat and ball and go home. Johnmc (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to Bailiwick[edit]

People from Jersey have been making repeated edits stating that Sark is owned by the Crown in right of the Republique of Guernsey, but the references provided nowhere state that Sark is owned by the Crown in right of "the Republique of Guernsey", or that Sark is a part of a "Republique of Guernsey". Rather than continue undoing each others' edits, I would propose to resolve this issue on the Talk page.

Immediately prior to 1565, the sovereignty over Sark was claimed by the Crown, but was not effectively exercised by it. The Island was disputed, and was also claimed by the French at time. Thus, the Island was not under de facto sovereignty of the British Crown. By Letters Patent of Queen Elizabeth I of 6 August 1565, the Queen agreed to grant the Island as a Royal Fief directly to its first Seigneur, Helier de Carteret, in exchange for him occupying, securing and defending the Island, in effect for the first time in many years securing and exercising the sovereignty over the Island for the Crown. These were express conditions of the grant; if de Carteret had failed to meet those conditions, he would have lost the Fief. If sovereignty had not previously been exercised over Sark by the Crown, how could it have formed, at the time the Fief was first created, a part of Guernsey?

Indeed, most of Sark's original inhabitants having been from Jersey, when they created their first Court and law on 27 October 1579, they based them on the laws and customs of Jersey. When the Sark Bailiff and Jurats were subsequently arrested, the ambiguous legal situation was rectified by the Order in Council of 24 April 1583 of Queen Elizabeth I by which she created a Sark court whose law was thenceforth to be based on Guernsey law.

Although Sark is for administrative purposes within the Bailiwick of Guernsey, in practice this means little more than that the Crown representative on Sark is the Lieutenant Governor in Guernsey - with whom Sark has a relationship independent from that of Guernsey, as all references confirm. It is indeed true that Bailiwick of Guernsey Laws can be extended to Sark with the consent of Chief Pleas, but this is much in the same was as UK Acts of Parliament can also extend to Sark, Guernsey and Jersey - with the consent of their respective legislatures - but this does not make Sark, Guernsey, or Jersey a part of the United Kingdom; I note this because some people from Jersey seem very keen to make Sark merely an "autonomous part of Guernsey" rather than an Island of standing equal to that of Guernsey vis-a-vis the Crown, while I am sure these same people would take great exception if one claimed that Jersey was merely an "autonomous part of the United Kingdom". No Guersey officers - e.g. the Bailiff - have any jurisdiction on Sark.

Although Sark does not make its own criminal law, this is because Section 4(3) of The Reform (Sark) Law 2008 delegates criminal lawmaking to the States of Guernsey. Also, the Royal Court in Guernsey has appellate jurisdiction, but again this is so because The Reform (Sark) Law 2008 says so. The Chief Pleas could - with Royal Sanction - amend both of these aspects of its law.

Indeed, if it were not so, this would certainly be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights: if Sark's elected legislature did not have the power to vary our criminal laws, it it so decided, this would breach Article 3 of the First Protocol of the said Convention.

I have not seen any evidence that the Crown's relationship to Sark has ever been changed to being in right of "Republique of Guernsey". If you can provide evidence that this is the case (references), please explain when this was done, by what Royal Order in Council. If you cannot back it up, I do not believe you should keep putting such claims back on the main page.

The question of in which right the Crown owns Sark has recently been been written about in several legal opinions by leading QCs (see, for example, the reference to the sovereign of Sark in [1]) and has also been argued in the Supreme Court (R (oao Sir David Barclay & Others) v Secretary of State for Justice & Others) and I have seen no evidence other than the Crowns Sark in its own right.

If none of the above is persuasive, I suggest you go to the Privy Council web site ([2] and see the list of Orders in Council as approved by the Queen in Privy Council meetings. The list states, for each Order in Council, its title, and the right in which the Crown was acting when approving the Order. Orders in Council related to Sark state "Sark", not "Republique of Guernsey".

(La.coupee (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

By "people from Jersey", you seem to be referring to me. But Jersey really has nothing to do with this. It is the (reffed) claim of the States of Guernsey that Sark is part of the Bailiwick. It is the (reffed) statement of the Crown Officers of Guernsey that the legislature of Sark forms part of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. And indeed the interesting opinion of Leolin Price QC you cite includes the statement "Sark is (to an extent) part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey". I'm no keener than the next crapaud to "make Sark merely an autonomous part of Guernsey", but what is the qualitative difference between that formulation and that of Leolin Price QC? I'm making no claims at all - I'm providing reffed info. And your argument about the Crown Officers' statement of the constitutional position is hardly with me (let alone "people from Jersey") but with the Crown Officers. And those Crown Officers are nothing to do with Jersey - they're Guernsey's, they're yours. Bein à vous. Man vyi (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The point about OinC is interesting - some clarification of that would be helpful in the article. I note however that Guernsey Legal Resources comments: "Orders in Council with ‘Bailiwick of Guernsey’ in the title also extend to Sark (sometimes with specific modifications for Sark)." Man vyi (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Have re-reverted the removal of reffed information. I repeat that the definition of the Crown comes from the Crown Officers of Guernsey (who state on the States of Guernsey website "The Law Officers provide a comprehensive range of legal services for the Crown, the States of Guernsey, the States of Alderney and the Chief Pleas of Sark"), and for the sake of convenience I reiterate the definition given by the Guernsey authorities in the ref here: "The Crown in this context ordinarily means the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Even on a narrow construction, what we hold to be here in view is the collective governmental and civic institutions, established by and under the authority of the Monarch, for the governance of these Islands, including the States of Guernsey and legislatures in the other Islands, the Royal Court and other courts, the Lieutenant Governor, Parish authorities, and the Crown acting in and through the Privy Council." I further quote the States of Guernsey website: "The Bailiwick of Guernsey includes a number of islands in addition to Guernsey.... Sark lies nearly 8 miles east of Guernsey..." Now, there may be some legal and constitutional interpretation over the complicated issues, but I suggest we need some pretty powerful sources to refute the statement of the constitutional position by the Law Officers of the Crown in Guernsey. Man vyi (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to try and get this cleared up. Is there any other construction that can be put on the wording "the States of Guernsey and legislatures in the other Islands" than that this covers the States of Guernsey, Chief Pleas and the States of Alderney? The definition also covers the Lieutenant Governor. Is there a different source that provides a definition that distinguishes HE's rôles within the Bailiwick? Man vyi (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's have a look at what the document (based on a Jersey server) you reference is and what it actually says. Firstly, what it says: "It is sometimes said that the Law Officers’ primary duty is to the Crown, and that would in our estimation probably not be an inaccurate statement if properly understood, but it is frequently misconstrued. The Crown in this context ordinarily means the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey."

All the Law Officers are saying is that in the context of them advising the Crown, the Crown ordinarily means "the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey." They are doing so to try to explain away the (perceived) conflict of interest due to their duty to advise several clients - in this case, they are focussing on the Crown and the States of Guernsey. Their claim is that the two are actually not in conflict, or perhaps their claim is that the two are not really different clients at all, because when they are advising the Crown, they are advising it as to the best interests of Guernsey, not the United Kingdom (incidentally, I find their claim to be weak and not particularly persuasive, which I think becomes more plain once one considers also their duties to Sark and Alderney, see below).

The description they give uses the term "république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey". This is not a formal term commonly used in formal legal / constitutional documents. Indeed, I have never seen it used in any such document; have you? It may well be an informal term that was invented for the purpose of this letter. Here it is worth pointing out what the document you reference is: it is a letter from the Law Officers to Lord Carswell. Its nature is therefore rather informal; it is not a formal legal or constitutional document, nor is it a reference document.

The letter does not claim that the Crown means "the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey" in any context other than the one the Law Officers are talking about: the description of the client they claim to be advising.

Finally, the reference document you provide has nothing to do with Sark, and does not address Sark in any way. If it did, it would clearly have to point out that in addition to the clients of the Crown and the States of Guernsey (which the Law Officers try to explain away as being essentially the same), they also have as clients the Chief Pleas of Sark and the States of Alderney. Once this is noted, it pretty much pokes a hole in the Law Officers' argument about the Crown and the States of Guernsey being the same. If that is the case, how does this relate to the Chief Pleas and the States of Alderney as their clients? The Law Officers do not try to explain away the conflict of interest between the three island legislatures - it would be impossible, and they do not even try. If they did, I speculate they would say that when they advise Sark, they are actually advising "the Crown in right of the république of Sark" or some such contortion. However, they do not enter this territory, from which we can safely conclude that their informal letter was not intending to make any statement about Sark.

So, on the basis of the above, I claim that your source document does nothing whatsoever to support your claim that "the Crown owns Sark in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey", and that this latter statement derives its origin merely to a very significant leap of someone's imagination.

Finally, having personal local knowledge of Sark and its constitutional relationship with the Crown, I believe your claim to be false, indeed, unheard of. As described in more detail elsewhere on this page, and supported with references, serious claims have been made that the Crown acts, when it does with respect to Sark, in right of the Duchy of Normandy, or in right of Sark; or, when approving Bailiwick legislation which has been assented to by Chief Pleas, in right of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. Actually, none of this refers to in right of what the Crown owns Sark, only in right of which jurisdiction it makes decisions with respect to Sark.

Finally, you are wrong to say that Sark has "extensive" autonomy within the Bailiwick and Chief Pleas has "extensive" legislative competencies, whilst the States of Guernsey has others. Legislation in the area of criminal law (and certain areas of civil law) has been delegated by Chief Pleas to the States of Guernsey by way of specific Laws (in the case of criminal law, this is section 4(3) of The Reform (Sark) Law 2008). The Crown in Chief Pleas is the sovereign body on the Island of Sark, with full legislative competencies, and has the power to revoke any legislative competencies it has delegated to the States of Guernsey.

I hope this is helpful.

Do you have specific personal local knowledge of Sark, its laws and its constitutional position, or are your edits based purely on random non-authoritative sources from the Internet (in this case, furthermore incorrectly interpreted)? (La.coupee (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

All this is, as far as I can see, interpretation or original research. Have you a source which states this? Is this sourcable from the text of the Reform (Sark) Law 2008? It would be illuminating for the article to be able to place competing definitions in context (the existence of the court cases over constitutional interpretations suggests that there must be sources somewhere). Any knowledge I have of Sark is beside the point (as is any belief you have about rightness or wrongness - we need reliable sources). I am not relying on any personal knowledge I have - I am relying on apparently reliable sources from Guernsey and the UK. The Law Officers, in their cited submission, state that the origin of the "république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey" derives from the "oaths of the Guernsey Law Officers". I hold no brief for the Law Officers of the Crown in Guernsey, and they may well be wrong, but is there a reliable source that states otherwise? Now, as for the Bailiwick, you cited a debate from Lords Hansard which included the formulations "Sark is a highly autonomous dependency of Guernsey" and "Sark is an island of the Bailiwick of Guernsey". Is either an acceptable form of words (they're both equally reffed)? Man vyi (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to stating that "Sark is an island in the Bailiwick of Guernsey".

As for the rest, I suggest we take it one step at a time.

First, your assert that the Crown "owns Sark in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey."

In support of your claim, you provide a single reference, a letter from the Guernsey Law Officers to Lord Carswell, stored on a server in Jersey. The document is not a formal constitutional document, purporting to provide succinct and precise definitions of legal terms; it is an informal letter describing the Law Officers' role within the Bailiwick of Guernsey in intelligible simple English. The document states "It is sometimes said that the Law Officers’ primary duty is to the Crown, and that would in our estimation probably not be an inaccurate statement if properly understood, but it is frequently misconstrued. The Crown in this context ordinarily means the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey."

The crucial words here are: "in this context".

When the Law Officers say "The Crown in this context ordinarily means the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey," which context do they have in mind? The sentence preceding this sentences gives us a clue: "It is sometimes said that the Law Officers’ primary duty is to the Crown ..."

The context in which the Law Officers are claiming "the Crown" means "the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey" therefore is: to whom do the Law Officers have a primary duty (i.e., as legal advisors, who is their client?)? Their answer is "the Crown", and "The Crown in this context ordinarily means the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey", as opposed to "the Crown in right of the United Kingdom". Indeed, their statement a little further on "But on either and any sustainable view, the Crown very clearly does not mean the United Kingdom Government" confirms that their purpose is merely to convey, in simple English, that they are advising the Government of Guernsey (i.e. the States of Guernsey and the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey), not the Government of the United Kingdom (the Crown in right of the United Kingdom).

The Law Officers do not allege in their letter that "the Crown" should be read to mean "the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey" in any other context whatsoever.

None of the above is "interpretation or original research", it is merely reading and quoting the letter.

What you then appear to have done is to take this document and syntactically transplant its quote "The Crown in this context ordinarily means the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey" into a whole host of other semantic contexts - in this page, and other pages, here claiming that the Crown owns Sark in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, elsewhere that the Lieutenant Governor in the Bailwick represents the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, etc.

When the Law Officers say they advise "the Crown in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey" they are saying their client is the Government of Guernsey (not the Government of the United Kingdom); whey you say "the Crown owns Sark in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey," you appear to be saying that Sark is not a jurisdiction in which the Crown is capable of acting separately from the jurisdiction of the Bailiwick of Guernsey and that Sark is not a jurisdiction of its own. I say, appear to be saying, because I have not seen "in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey" being used in this context elsewhere, so it is not actually clear to me what exactly you mean by that phrase. However, what is clear is that this is an entirely different context from the context to which the Law Officers are referring.

In other words, you are quoting the Law Officers out of context.

So, I could conclude here and simply say that if you are going to make claims like "the Crown owns Sark in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey," you should provide some references, because you have so far provided none.

But I am going to go further and save you some time looking for such a reference. Because if you go looking for it, you will not find one. I have already provided one source (the Hansard) which states that Sark has an independent relationship with the Crown. Additionally, I hereby quote the Kilbrandon report, which is widely considered the most authoritative source of the British constitution: "In their evidence both the States of Alderney and the Chief Pleas of Sark stated that the constitutional relationships between the Islands and the United Kingdom were, broadly speaking, the same as those between Guernsey and the United Kingdom, as set out in the evidence of the States of Guernsey; and this was accepted by the States of Guernsey and by the Home Office."

This tells us two things: (i) Alderney and Sark each have an independent relationship with the Crown, on equal footing as Guernsey has - and all the relevant parties (the Governments of Sark, Alderney, Guernsey and the UK) accept this. Therefore the Crown is the sovereign of the United Kingdom, of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, of the Island of Guernsey, of the Island of Sark, etc. and can act in right of the United Kingdom, in right of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, in right of the Island of Guernsey, or in right of the Island of Sark, in each of them separately. This is hardly consistent with the claim that "the Crown owns Sark in right of the république of the Bailiwick of Guernsey". "the Crown owns Sark in right of Sark" perhaps might be true.

The second thing the Kilbrandon report tells us is: (ii) direct personal knowledge is very important when discussing jurisdictions such as Sark. You will note that the Kilbrandon report, written by the Kilbrandon Commission, the most authoritative single official and formal document on Sark's constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom, says that they know what they know because "In their evidence both the States of Alderney and the Chief Pleas of Sark stated ... and this was accepted by the States of Guernsey and by the Home Office." You will note that they do not cite any written sources.

It is unfortunately the case that in the case of Sark, there haven't exactly been very many comprehensive treatises of the Island's history written; and in a place with 600 inhabitants, which for most of its history was largely inhabited by farmers and fishermen, this is what you should expect. Local knowledge is therefore invaluable, and may sometimes be the only available source of information - to the extent that it is the only source available even to a Royal Commission investigating the British Constitution. To quote Chief Pleas minutes of some years ago: "Much of Sark law is customary law" (i.e. unwritten law).

I therefore have to respectfully disagree with your claim that "Any knowledge I have of Sark is beside the point". I believe that editors with direct personal knowledge or expertise of a subject are able to provide a better quality Wikipedia entry, particularly in cases of subjects such as the present one. Your mistake, I believe, has been that you have relied, in this instance, on a non-authoritative source from the Internet which you have misunderstood, and you appear to me to have misunderstood its meaning precisely of (i) your perhaps detailed knowledge of another, very similar, but subtly different jurisdiction (Jersey), (ii) your lack of local knowledge of a similar but subtly different, jurisdictions (the Bailiwick of Guernsey and Sark) and the subtle differences from Jersey which exist within them.

Finally, I do not need to quote the Reform (Sark) Law 2008 to substantiate the claim that Sark is a jurisdiction of its own; I may refer to a much more ancient document, the Letters Patent of 6 August 1565, which created the Fief of Sark: "Elizabeth, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith etc. to all to whom these Presents shall come, greeting. WHEREAS our Island of Sark, situate near our Islands of Guernsey and Jersey ... KNOW YE, therefore, that We ... give and grant by these presents ... unto the aforesaid H. de Carteret ... all that aforesaid Island of Sark, with all its rights ... and privileges ... in as ample a manner and form as any of Our Progenitors, Kings of England ... ever lawfully had ... for ever ... Such leases and letting out to farm to be made under the seal of the said Helier de Carteret, to be as equally valid, firm and effectual in law as if they were made or granted under the seals of Guernsey or Jersey."

From this, you can see that (i) Elizabeth I granted the first Seigneur of Sark the Fief of Sark directly, not via any intermediate authority, with all the rights and privileges that the Kings have ever had over it and (ii) she put the seal of the Seigneur of Sark on the same footing as the seal of the (at the time) Captain of Guernsey or (at the time) the Captain of Jersey.

(La.coupee (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC))

References

Locked[edit]

I've locked the article for now due to the edit war going on. I'm not going to block either editor because I want them to agree on an acceptable wording here which can be inserted into the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Per discussion at WP:AN, I've unlocked the article. Further edit warring over this issue will lead to severe sanctions. I urge both parties to reach a consensus over the issue instead of edit warring. Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

10:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)==Veneti and Breton speaking== Where are the documents, the sources and the archeological evidences to tell such things ? Why would Sark have depended on the Veneti located on the south coast of Britanny, so far away ? Sark was certainly part of the Unelli (Cotentin) territory, or maybe the Abrincatui (Avranchin) or the Coriosolites, like the other Channel Islands. I don't know precisely the subject, but all the lands that constituted later the Duchy of Normandy were the Frankish Pagi, that were themselves the bishoprics depended on the Rouen archbishop, which frame was the Lugdunensis Second that reproduced the territories of the Gaulish tribes Caleti, Aulerci Eburovici, Veliocassi, Bodiocassi, Viducassi, Lixovii, Unelli and Abrincati. Was Sark included in the Rouen archbishopric before the Duchy of Normandy ? If it was the case, it means that the Unelli or the Abrincati lived there, not the descendents of Coriosolites, that depended on the Tours archbishopric, as far as I know. Where are the evidences of a Breton speaking population in the toponyms or in documents, for example ? Nortmannus (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that such things as Norman nationalists existed. Why and where hardly are serious objections, just like your extrapolations about gaulish settlements making a difference between different armorican tribes depending on their territory forming present-day Normandy or not.
  • Veneti were a specific tribe, but their name was used for the wider armorican federation, including Unelli and Coriosolites, who fought Caesar. Besides, Veneti controlled the tin trade with Britain, so it does make sense that they might have had a settlement in the Channel. And probably even more.
Then you refer to the religious organizations as if you were trying to prove, and indeed you state, that all the lands which constituted later Normandy formed connected territories long before Normandy existed, and that all said territories were 'depending' on Rouen. What a nationalist prochronist vision of history! And this is absurd.
  • Channel Islands are mentionned in several Vitae of Breton saints (who lived in the 7th/8th century), do some research. Territories of Unelli and Abrincatui were incorporated in the Breton kingdom long before Norman settled near Rouen, Saxon lords controlled the territory around Bayeux from 6th c. until 922. The Duchy of Normandy cannot therefore be seen as a natural construction based on evolution since the Gauls, it was actually made up of one third Frankish territories (911), a third Saxon (922) and a third Breton (931), the latter including Channel Islands.


So, is there any reason why you would like to delete the part of Sark's history that mentions probable connections with Veneti and well-lnown established connections with Brittany? Except your pseudonym, I mean.--Maeldan Mor (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think that you are a little bit sensitive... "I didn't know that such things as Norman nationalists existed" Surprise!!! It's not a good thing it's true...but...why are you so surprised? and WHY do you think that he's a nationalists only because he seems to be attached to Normandy? Surprise (again) there is something on the other side of the brittany borders... What a typical Breton arrogance!!! I'm surprised, to be honest,that you sayed he has a nationalist prochronist vision of history. Come on, look what you wrote... "Territories of Unelli and Abrincatui were incorporated in the Breton kingdom"... We are not talking about territories but tribes... Breton wasn't here when unelli and abrincatui were on manche department. Oh i know what do you mean...you talk about Compiègne treaty... you sayed...those territories were incorporated in the Breton kingdom "LONG BEFORE" norman settled near rouen... well, Compiègne treaty..Compiègne treaty...867, St clair sur epte 911...Well we have to be fair, Rouen is far from Cotentin so let's move to 933. So 66 years (not long) before...Maximum!

Two things now, I know that bretons have a strange relationship with their history but... in first hand there is no historical proof that there was any Breton influence or control of the kingdom on the avranchin and even less on the cotentin(which, like the Anglo-Norman islands, were indeed part of the kingdom). And, to be honest, at this time the territory should be more impregnated by the Saxons than normans (except perhaps on the side of the hague) or Bretons. In a second hand (and it's a link with the first part) the Breton kingdom disappeared in 903 and it has been experiencing troubles since the treaty of Compiegne, notably the wars of succession, even if it is true, Alain I succeeded in giving back the greatness to the kingdom from Questembert until his death . But apart this short period of time, from the political annexation of cotentin and avranchin to the Norman conquest, Brittany was drifting until the duchy of Brittany in 936. well, between the wars of succession and the Viking issue for years, it's normal that Bretons didn't had the control over cotentin and avranchin. During this short 66 years, they didn't have enough power to control anything in this part of modern Normandy and they certainly had better things to do.

But it's not the main subject right? You refer to the Vitae of Breton saints. Well, there is no doubt that there were relationships between bretons from Bretagne and the islands as it's sure that there was some breton people (from "great britain) who lived on the islands because the breton immigration touched all the armorican coast and as you know (well, I hope) armoric is not only Britanny. The real problem here is not that there is a link between celtic tribes or later Bretons of "Britanny" but i can't understand why do you absolutely want, despite all the evidence, to say that the veneti or another tribe of armoric (Brittany side) were sark master? it's not serious. This is "Breton Nationalism" in this case. Especially when Northmannus sayed that it can be a place controled by Coriosolites. So how can you talk about norman nationalism? they were from the good side of couesnon no?

Even if you sayed that veneti was a term used for a great part of armoric tribes i don't see the interest to use this approximation? Talk about coriosolites in this case. Or, to be honest, just don't expose this theorie without proof. Even if it can be true, no doubt, but you have no proove. It's easy to say something and used ah maybe that maybe this... but it's a bit dishonest as a process to make "your" history.

So, is there any reason why you would like to invent a part of Sark's history and continue this Breton movement who wants absolutely imposed a kind of "bretonitude" to the islands?? Except your pseudonym, I mean.Lihou48 (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Economy[edit]

Someone put in an edit to claim that Sark had a huge offshore finance centre, and that our tourism was tiny. This is not true. I undid the edit. Please substantiate such claims with references and/or evidence. There is not a single financial institution based on Sark, we have a branch of Natwest and a branch of HSBC, the former only has one employee. We have no banks of our own, there is no secrecy legislation, no trust legislation, nor even a company register. The mainstay of our economy are our hotels, restaurants and our building contractors, and most of our working population derives employment and income directly or indirectly from those. It is true that our taxes are (still) relatively low, although rapidly growing - as the public sector is becoming a slowly but surely growing provider of employment - but only for our 600 residents. It is certainly a good thing for us that we are not taxed as crazily as much of the rest of the world, but it is not a way for us to make money. There is very strict legislation in place which forbids Sark addresses being used by those who do not actually live here, and criminal penalties for non-compliance.

It is Guernsey that is a finance centre, and Sark is suffering as a result, because commuters between London and Guernsey employed in finance keep plane fares high and thus harm our tourist industry. Unfortunately, though, we can't blame it all on Guernsey since a lot of the blame lies with our own Sark Shipping which is very expensive.

La.coupee (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • @La.coupee: CBS 60 minutes did a segment on the many foreign corporations which, nominally, have their HQ in Sark. This segment showed ordinary Sark residents, with several modems, per household, who were the nominal directors of these corporations. That is probably what the passage that disturbed you referred to.

    These strict financial laws you refer to... is it possible the 60 minutes segment predates them? Geo Swan (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: yes, what you describe was known as the 'Sark Lark' and was back in the 1980s, so I expect the 60 minutes coverage dates back to then (especially as you describe residents using modems. It is no longer the case in Sark today. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Laws[edit]

Why say that the "last Clameur recorded on Sark was raised in June 1970 ", when one in 1989 is immediately referred to?203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"Parliament" and "Court" Building[edit]

Sark July 2011 50.jpg

I think the building on the right is where Chief Pleas and the Court of the Seneschal meet. Is that correct? It might be a good illustration for the Politics section.--Hannesde Correct me! 09:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Or the front door with sign is here: File:Sark July 2011 38.jpg. Man vyi (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC
Wasn't it also the school building in former times?--Hannesde Correct me! 09:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Transport: what about tricycles?[edit]

Bicycles are mentioned as being a permissible form of transport on Sark - but what about trikes? Presumably they are, also?--46.65.8.106 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The article therefore needs a clear reference to, or quotation of, the relevant (by-)law(s) and precisely which vehicles are affected. The current offline reference to an old back copy of Car Magazine is insufficient.--109.156.16.44 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Seigneurie Image[edit]

Can anybody provide a different picture of la Seigneurie, perhaps from a perspective similar to this? The image now used does not show so clearly the Manor as a whole and the relationship of the different parts of the building to each other. Images of the Cannons in the Seigneurie garden might also be an appropriate illustration of the history section.--Hannesde Correct me! 14:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Seigneur[edit]

This article mentions bizzare powers of the Seigneur prior to 2008, but fails to speak about his more important powers. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Map[edit]

The map states that Sark is a "dependency of Great Britain". It isn't. I've asked the original uploader to change it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Invasion by André Gardes[edit]

Thought I'd note some discrepancies here - I've edited it a little given only once source says he "handed the gun over", and that's also in French which I can only read via google translation...

  • Liberation.fr - Complemented weapon, handed it over, others jumped him and 'took control'.
  • Independent - Complement weapon then constable jumps on him (seemingly himself?) as Gardes is changing the magazine.
  • Economist - Guard already suspicious due to Gardes 'sleeping rough', TWO constables approach, struggle with "rifle in hand but rigorously unused".
  • Metro - Complement weapon then constable jumps on him (definitely one guard now!) as Gardes is changing the magazine.

--> I've basically gone for the more prevalent details, but it seems this might always remain somewhat ambiguous. =/

Nikthestunned 16:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Sark. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 00:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sark Company Registry[edit]

Plese note that thisdiscussion is cut and pasted from my personal talk page, in order that it can continue here.

Hi, I put the reference to BBC www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-guernsey-40188193 In fact, the issue is of extreme importance for the Sark economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.153.136.1 (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC) If you disagree, you are welcome to add other facts, but it is impolite to ignore the issue in general. Sark is an offshore financial centre, and the issue of companies is essential to understanding its money-making mechanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.153.136.1 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for posting to my talk page. As you are an IP editor and so may well not have a stable talk page address, I am replying to you on my talk page.

1. I would urge you, if you wish to get into debates on Wikipedia (and, indeed, the more the merrier) to register with a username as that will give you a talk page that can be used reliably. Apart from anything else currently, so far as I know, there is no way that I can be sure that you have been notified of this reply, and you might miss it.

2. With respect, your comments would have been best placed on the talk page of the article where more people would see it. Obviously if the two of us were to continue to disagree about the content of the article it would be important for other editors to be aware of that - we may have to build consensus. Of course it can be a good idea to post a note to the editor in question's talk page (ie in this case, mine) mentioning that a discussion has been started on the articles talk page. This is because when a post is made to my talk page I get an email notification - all the more reason for you to register and get your own talk page, I would have thought. I shall take the liberty of cutting and pasting this discussion to the talk page of the article, so that we can, if need be continue the discussion there.

3. Yes, I see you have reverted my edit in its entirety. I see you have therefore reinstated the use of the Sark Newsletter as a source, when it is clearly unreliable. I am minded to re edit so as to exclude the reference to the Sark Newsletter, and that part of the article that relies on this source. However I shall wait and see if there are comments from other editors.

4. I meant no discourtesy. Having been on wikipedia for a bit I am used to seeing edits, including mine, being, in their turn, edited robustly.

5. I look forward to continuing this discussion on the article talk page. I note your remark about the off shore financial industry of Sark and can see how further referenced information on that could be useful to the article. But, as on every thing else I would not put your trust in the Sark Newsletter......Daithidebarra (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I agree. The Sark Newsletter is no reliable source, let's stick with more trustworthy media. Satu Katja (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The Sark Newsletter is a controversial source, but what is controversial is its opinions. I'm not aware of there being any issue of unreliability as regards purported verifiable facts reported by the Sark Newsletter. Can you substantiate your position that verifiable alleged facts, as reported by the Sark Newsletter, are any less reliable than a typical source acceptable for Wikipedia purposes? Thanks. Tarian.liber (talk)

12:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry I dont understand what you mean by a "verifiable alleged fact" sounds like an oxymoron to me. Could you explain?

Daithidebarra (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Daithidebarra, let's take an objective perspective: The Sark Newspaper is published weekly from 2008. It supports the opposition to the Government of Sark. There are allegations that it is financed by the billionaires Barclay. The issue of the referendum on the Sark Company Registry is covered much better by the Sark Newspaper than Guernsey Press. This is a fact. Then you have the right to disagree with the political vision of the Sark Newspaper, but you cannot deny the very facts under that vision: there was a referendum. There are several articles on the fact that the President of the Government of Sark had bitten a woman in a bar. You may still politically support Mr. Rolfe, but you may not deny the fact that a woman says he had bitten her. The Sark Newspaper is liked by opposition, and disliked by the people supporting the Government of Sark. However, these are political opinions. When you say that the newspaper is unreliable, you express your political support to the Government. It is important to respect alternative political visions.Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

The political position taken by a newspaper is independent of whether or not it can be regarded as a reliable source. The Sark Newspaper is clearly an unreliable source. By saying this I make no comment on any political position the paper holds. Only on its content. Now, when or if, the Sark newspaper makes a true factual statement, the way forward is to find a reliable source, such as the BBC that confirms it. I am also concerned by the example you use as it appears to make a potentially defamatory statement about a named individual but I leave that point to admins.Daithidebarra (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Daithidebarra, no Rolfe in fact attacked the woman in the Mermaid Tavern, and the Sark Newspaper wrote many times about this. Mr. Rolfe did not issue any claim against the Sark Newspaper on this point, and this means he agrees this was true. Would you claim that Rolfe does not read the Sark Newspaper? It might be that the woman provoked him, nonetheless he used violence as a reaction to her words. Please give me at least one example when the Sark Newspaper was recognised as defamatory by a court. Your appraisal is based on your political support to Mr Rolfe, the Government of Sark and other elite politicians only, I'm afraid. Please give me at least one example of an unreliable fact? May I ask you whether you are from Sark?:) Scienceknowledge88 (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I would re iterate that my view of whether the Sark Newspaper is a reliable source for Wikipedia has nothing to do with the political position the newspaper takes. I would also point out that seeking to claim that an online publication is reliable, because it appears to publish defamatory statements, but does not (according to you) get sued, is a very weak argument as there are all sorts of good reasons why people do not sue for libel. The leading one is that one needs very deep pockets. I would conclude by pointing out that my "appraisal" is not based on political support for anyone. Nor do I see whether or not I was from Sark could be relevant. Daithidebarra (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
And one must remember that there is no law of libel in Sark. [[User:Molly Romanov|Molly Romanov]] (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)