Talk:Principality of Seborga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Micronations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of micronations. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European Microstates, which collaborates on articles related to European Microstates. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related work groups:

Contents 1 Location 2 POV 3 Really a state? 4 Not a neutral article 5 ... the principality isn't recognised by anyone ?? 6 Just to be clear 7 In the interest of accuracy 8 Arm 9 Population? 10 Seborga is Recognized ?? 11 3 articles 12 Recognition questions

[edit] Location

If the little dot on Italy is supposed to be Seborga, it's in the wrong place. Liguria, where the article states Seborga is located, is considerably to the northwest of the black dot.Doovinator 17:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This was severely POV and I've toned it down a lot. This "micronation" has put a lot of effort into its websites etc, but it is still nonetheless just another scam. That people will buy your coins doesn't in itself make them "legal". I'll let others argue over the "unrecognised" nonsense. That you have no hope of recognition because you have absolutely no basis for it should seal the matter, but a little fantasy never hurt much. BTW, Italy was unified in large part by conquest and war, and, like all modern states, assumes its interior integrity without regard to the historical situation in the 1500s. I daresay there are a couple of villages somewhere in France that really do still belong to England (a reversal of the case in Passport to Pimlico) but I can't see them being handed over any time soon. If Seborga wants its independence, I suggest it buys some tanks.Dr Zen 10:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

this is severely biist against the principality if it is technically correct than the articles tone should be neutral. Paladine

Italy was unified in large part by conquest and war, and, like all modern states, assumes its interior integrity without regard to the historical situation in the 1500s while the above stament is true it should be noted that the principality technicly belonged to the country doing the conquring(the country that owned it never thought it important to offically add it to his country) and as such could not be conquered. If it had been mentioned in the artical that united Italy this would not be a problem, it would belong to Italy, but this tiny place was overlooked(twice!). Until a higher coart such as the world court steps in to examine its legitimacy we can't say wether it is or is'nt a independent principality.

Why are you talking about if it offically exists, i want to know how much i can buy it for Swalesy

[edit] Really a state?

There are a lot of factors that determine the legitimacy of statehood. They have their case and beliefs, and the question really is an open one. Now, the question of whether the article should be up or not should not correlate to whether it is an actual, widely recognized state, but rather whether there is relavent information. In this regard, leave the article up, however it does need to be neutral and objective. They have a right to opinion, and people have a right to learn of it.

[edit] Not a neutral article

This article is not neutral: it talks about Seborga as it is currently existing today as a sovereign state. Naturally this is not the case: Seborga is just a city belonging to the province of Imperia in the Liguria region in Italy. The luigino currency is not legal tender anywhere and no resident of Seborga has the right to issue a real monetary unit: the only recognized currency is of course the euro. Luigino coins are more like "tokens" worth some money and sold to tourists visiting the small city. In 2002 there were even disputes between the "prince" and the real "ruler" of Seborga: the mayor. The mayor was becoming increasingly sick with the anachronistic idea of self-proclaiming a principality while Italy is focusing on European integration. Since we're just talking about a bunch of people playing monarchy (as a touristic attraction), derided by the few who know about them, the article should be modified to be neutral and report the real situation.

The article is fairly NPOV as far as I can see. I makes it clear that the principality isn't recognised by anyone. You're wrong about the currency however. The Luigino does actually circulate widely within Seborga, and there are numerous commercial and banking establishments in Seborga that convert Euros to Luigini and vice versa. As for "a bunch of people playing monarchy" you're actually talking about an entire town of 300 or so people who elected their own prince in 2 near unanimous votes, so its hardly insignificant. --Gene_poole 23:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably picked the wrong title: what I meant is that this seems like a promotional pamphlet about their claims, not an informative article. I know luiginos really exist and are "exchangeable for money": even phisces in casinos are tradeable for money but this does not make them a monetary unit. That "currency" is un-recognized as the "state" issuing them. About the "prince", he may have been elected by hundreds or even thousands... he has no political power and the principality does not exist. Now, I find the article interesting but IMO is not clearly stated that this micronation does not exist; "Seborga is a little town [...] and it is a principality"; this line at the beginning of the article does not reflect reality, and the general mood as well.

Whomever is posting these unsigned comments should post their user link Paladine

At times I'm starting to get tired of these constant bickering on Wikipedia about what might be called a state, nation, or whatever political in question. Basically the arguments bog down to the relevance of recognition by outside parties. Personally, I believe it's totally ludicrous that something might only be called 'exisisting' if a certain number of outsiders agree that it does, and think that more important in a case like the one of Seborga is the nationality inscribed in the passports issued to its inhabitants and inclusion of the town in Italian civil administrative records. I do not per se think this article is not neutral, though at times it might be somewhat uncarefully phrased. The opening line is not really a faulty one, but an explanation on the factuality should immediately follow. I shrink from editing the header, though, because of a more serious flaw in the article itself: a complete lack of reference on who claims what. In effect, who is it that claims an independent principality, and who support this claim? The citizens of the town? The civil authorities? This should be clarified first before we fall over the claim issued in the first line. --Santetjan 16:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I am the author of the unsigned edits... sorry about that: I was a Wikipedia newbie at that time. Back on topic, I still believe it is a lot deceiving to read the opening line "and it is a principality" on a page with the exact same look of "real" countries pages (table with info, flag, etc.). At least I would change the first line in "it is claimed to be a principality" and then investigate about that. --Lorenzodv 23:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ... the principality isn't recognised by anyone ??

Not true at all.

For what i know, and i leave no more than 15 km to Seborga, the principality has been recognized at the moment by 92 sovreign states in the world, and the needed number to obtain legal independancy is just 100. This is all based on the tons of ancient documents, proved for real, in possess of the Principality Secretary. This question of legal independancy of Seborga is in some way parallel to the story of whole Ligurian region. In fact, even if included in the italian republic, in all italian history there is no prove about any signings of submission acts by Liguria to the Italian Republic (as all the other regions did), and is warm and alive the movement leading to recognize the independancy of all Liguria and its original state of "Repubblica Marinara di Genova". Look here: MiL Of course at the present moment Liguria is Italy, and Seborga is Italy too.

===>What? Can you provide the names of any of these 92 states, or any third-party verification of this claim? Furthermore, I have no idea where you got this standard of "legal independancy."

This is nonsense. --pippo2001 09:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course there's no records Itally started there and expanded to cover all of what is now italy. The country that was there IS italy! Zazaban 20:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just to be clear

If somebody kills somebody else in Seborga, the Italian Police will come and an Italian judge will rule. They have the Italian Post office. They pay taxes to the Italian State. They use Italian schools and Hospitals. It is just a folkloristic revival, supported by some ambiguity in documents, that basically forgot about it. It is worthwhile a mention, but it should not be presented by a state. Simply because it is not. --pippo2001 09:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to get rid of the accuracy dispute. --pippo2001 09:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. You may want to refer to the article State to see what a micronation is. Seborga is not even a principality. It is a clear example of folklore. The ruling Mayor is elected according to Italian Law. On April 23, 1995 Seborgans voted, 304 in favor, 4 against for the Principality's Constitution and its general rules. However the "Prince" cannot change laws, there is no enforcement of rules decided by him. Please, consider that the Tourist Passport is available from the Direction of Tourism of Seborga see here. I have nothing against microstates or in favor of any Italian empire. I actually don't care. However, wikipedia should be correct and neutral. And folklore should not confound reality. I tried to make a neutral article. --pippo2001 18:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

He's just as much of a prince as Norton I was an emperor. By the way, the Italian and Portugese Wikipedias say that Seborga has 4 km², and so does the Italian statistics authority. Ausir 09:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In the interest of accuracy

I think it would be wise to either make it clear that this is a micronation (and perhaps even define a micronation) in the first sentence or to remove the country bar on the right at the very least. Given that Seborga is located in a part of the world where there are indeed several sovereign nations with clouded histories and confusing forms of government (e.g.: Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino) I see a huge potential for confusion here, at least among people who are not particularly informed about Europe, don't speak English as a first language or are young/poorly educated. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground.

An article on the topic itself is fine, but it shouldn't be presented in the manner that it is currently. Gabe 22:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arm

The arm is not the right one of "Comune di Seborga". You can see the right one at it.wikipedia. ediedi

Fixed. Pavel Vozenilek 01:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population?

It says the population is 339,000,000 in Seborga. I think that is incorrect as that would be saying that the population almost the size of USA lives in this small town.

Please, notice that the Municipality of Seborga (Comune di Seborga, in Italian) has no flag, but just a coat of arms. You used the flag of the "principality" as it was the one of the Municipality, which isn't. Of course, as clearly explained by others, it is only a tourist call, which runned because tourism increased very much. According to the Wikipedia file "Prince of Seborga" Giorgio Carbone, the so-called Prince, abdicated on July 1, 2006 in favour of American actor Nate Richert, now Prince Carlo Luigi I. I've the legitimate suspicion that this actor (I never heard about, before) needed some pubblicity....VAL

[edit] Seborga is Recognized ??

Quisiera saber si el Principado de Seborga es reconocida por alguien (alguna nacion o pais) como Estado Independiente o Principado.

O tal vez esto esta en tramite o en discusion ?

Que pasa con el Vaticano o Monaco ... estan en igual condicion que Seborga ? o son reconocidas como paises independientes ?

Gracias por sus comentarios

Carlos Escudero


...Ok, can someone translate this?--Wilson 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 articles

Is there any reason why this small town needs 3 articles, one on the town, one on it's jokey independence claim, and one on the local man who serves as "head of state"? Giorgio Carbone. I suggest no; this should be covered as a curiosity in the main Seborga article. --kingboyk 10:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Because each article meets notability standards. If unhappy then AfD. BlueValour 14:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability doesn't mean that seperate articles are needed. Why do we need a seperate article on the "micronation", given that it's the same town? AFD isn't relevant because I'm not arguing that this should be deleted, merely merged. --kingboyk 14:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Giorgio Carbone should be merged into Principality of Seborga, which is an article about a very well known micronation. Seborga (municipality) is about a little-known Italian town. These are 2 entirely separate entities. In this case the micronation is actually far better known than the town - in fact the only reason most people outside the imediate locality have even ever heard of the town is because of the micronation - so there is no justification whatsoever for a merge. --Gene_poole 23:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but "very well known micronation" is an oxymoron. And the idea that it even is a micronation in the first place is only POV. DreamGuy 06:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

But notable and reliably sourced POV, and therefore appropriate for Wikipedia as long as it is neutrally described (rather than promoted). PubliusFL 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Pages are merged when individually they are not notable enough for their own articles. Each of these three have sufficient notability to justify their own article. Even if all his claims are total tosh, Giorgio Carbone easily meets WP:N by having multiple non-trivial sources. If he is merged into one of these articles then logically all political bios should be merged into the articles of their respective countries. BlueValour 04:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree... the alleged principality and king articles are certainly NOT notable on their own, and the only notability they have is based upon the the main article, which already has a section fully and adequately describing everything of any importance. With a merge that section could become a little larger, but there's no justification at all for separate articles that mostly repeat the same basic facts present in the others. DreamGuy 06:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The micronation is notable on its own, as there are multiple non-trivial reliable sources that cover it. I originally supported separate articles for the micronation and the municipality in order to avoid "tainting" the article about the municipality (which is uncontroversial and mainstream) with potentially confusing information about the micronation (which is controversial and not mainstream). The topics should be addressed separately. I don't think merging them is a good idea, for the same reason I think merging Republic of Texas (group) into Texas would be a bad idea. Fringe information should be segregated from mainstream information. The article on the individual, however, should certainly be merged into the article on the micronation. PubliusFL 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the mergers. I think that all these micronations are total cobblers but being total cobblers is no reason to eliminate the articles. I guess most on here will be sceptical of the claims of the Flat Earth Society and IMHO Creationism is also total cobblers but there is a whole stack of articles on that. What counts is that the total cobblers should be sourced and these pages are. Gee, dude, this encyclopedia is stacked with unsourced articles - why eliminate some that are? Bridgeplayer 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've already articulated above, this discussion concerns two discrete entities that share similar (but not identical) names - a micronation and a town. One is a legal questionmark and the other is a legal fact - however both "exist" and are separately documented in all manner of reliable third party sources. Arguing that they should occupy the same article makes no more sense than suggesting that the article about Confederate States of America should be merged into United States of America, or that Independent Sovereign State of Australia (another micronation), should be merged into Commonwealth of Australia just because they share part of a name and claim to occupy the same or similar territories. WP does not exist as a platform for people to promote the POV that "micronations are ephemeral and inconsequential and so should not be documented in discrete articles". WP exists to document reality, and like it or not, micronations - both generally, and in particular - as a very well documented global phenomenon - are an undeniable part of contemporary reality. As such, the only consideration that needs to be taken into account when debates of this nature arise is "is this particular micronation documented in multiple reliable third party sources?" If the answer is affirmative, then WP:N and WP:V are established by default, and there is no sustainable justification for asserting that WP should not have a dedicated article on the subject in question. --Gene_poole 05:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recognition questions

In this artical: "List of micronations" it states that Seborga is recognized by San Marino (which is a UN member state). So my questions are:

• A. Which article is correct?
• B. Doesnt that make it a unrecognized sovereign state? (Just like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which is also recognized by only one other nation)

--SelfQ (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Seborga does not have diplomatic relations with San Marino or any other sovereign state. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that the list is incorrect?--82.92.144.148 (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so. The statement in the other article is unsourced and very dubious. I removed it until someone offers something to back it up. PubliusFL (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)