Talk:Navassa Island

Unofficial Flag
The unofficial flag of Navassa Island is an interesting bit of trivia, but it has never once flown over the island, including in the nearly a century that the Coast Guard operated a lighthouse there. It has, as far as I can tell, only been used once in real life, for a single ceremony held by the Park Service in Hawaii (see NAVA News 208). Since it has no official status, wasn't created by someone on the island, and has never flown over the island, does it really belong in the infobox?

I'm not necessarily advocating for deleting it entirely but IMO it should be moved to a place of lower importance in the article.Jbt89 (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Status
The island is American. It does not have a claim over the island because it does not need to. Haiti has a claim. We should not make out there is any form of equality here. There are many areas of the world where a country has a claim over another country's land and that does not change the legal sovereignty status. There are very few genuinely unresolved areas. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Is this a general comment or a concern about a specific part of the text? I mentioned competing U.S. and Haitian claims in response to 82.74.197.160's edits to the infobox to help explain why the fields/values were the ones being used. As it stands, I think the infobox and text are both clear that the U.S. established a claim to the island under the Guano Act and that Haiti asserted its claim a decade or so later (but based on a preexisting claim). I don't think anyone disputes or that anything in the article the disputes that the U.S. has de facto control of the island and considers it an unincorporated part of the national territory. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

We should avoid terms like "The US has de facto control" because it strongly implies that the de jure sovereign is in doubt, which it is not. The island is American under international law. I think your edits are an improvement on what wad there before. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The claim is disputed, so de jure sovereignty is in doubt, but de facto sovereignty (you're right a better phrase than "de facto control") is clear, especially since Navassa was claimed under the Guano Islands Act, which specifically says the U.S. has no obligation to maintain or defend a claim. Beyond that, it's an unincorporated territory, which implies the U.S. asserts control more than sovereignty, which is partially why Jones v. United States (1890) was decided based on U.S. authority to punish mutineers on the high seas. For what it's worth, to be encyclopedic, I think we properly have to recognize the U.S. authority over the island and the Haitian claim without inappropriately weighting one over the other. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because one or two countes dispute US sovereignty does not make it in doubt, especially when one of those countries is the one claiming sovereignty. There needs to be a far greater weight of evidence. Having a claim over something does not automatically throw doubt on its current ownership status. The US has had uninterupted practical control over the island for nearly 200 years. The Haiti claim is nothing more than an ambiguously worded clause in an even older treaty and reference made to the island in its constitution, coming after the US took control. It is a US island claimed by Haiti, not a sovereignty-disputed island subject to two claims. A better example of the second description is the status of the Crimean peninsular where the weight of evidence backing Russia's claim is somewhat larger. I think in international law the length of effective control carries greater weight that an old treaty or law, especially when that treaty has not been adhered to or confirmed in some way since. Just my view of course. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Project Leader's tenure
For future reference, the following tag contained a discussion on whether Silander was still in office: The second reply is mine, and contains a FederalPay source which may be helpful in maintaining the Project Leader infobox field (or verifying whether other US government employees are still serving, for that matter). Heavy Water (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)