Talk:Sark

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coverage on NPR 

message: *http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329430189-103639,00.html
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/4787130.stm
We need to write this up. – Kaihsu 11:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is already some description in the article. – Kaihsu 11:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent change in arrangements

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I changed the sentence.--Hun2de Correct me! 10:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 ) 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)
thread_title:  Tax immigrants 

message: Is Sèrtchiais the same as Sercquiais? --AW 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously so, see Sercquiais --Ratzer (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not bite at folks who ask questions. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sèrtchiais? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Victor Hugo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  Clameur de haro 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sark abolishes the last remaining feudal system in Europe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Feudalism?? 

message: What would the inhabitants of Sark be called?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.177.103 (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A Sarkee or a Sercquiais, according to preference. Man vyi (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Demonym 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Invasion

message: 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)
thread_title: Huzzah!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. --Molly Romanov (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [[André Gardes]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: United Kingdom

message: 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)
thread_title:  St Peter's Church

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge Little Sark 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge La Coupée 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article Assessment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Barclay brothers?

message: 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 ) 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 ( 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Relationship to Bailiwick 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Laws 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Transport: what about tricycles? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seigneurie Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Seigneur 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Invasion by André Gardes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420194139/http://www.uk-fusion.com:80/content/view/917/48/ to http://www.uk-fusion.com/content/view/917/48/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819151755/http://darksky.org/assets/documents/PR/2011/PRSarkHortobagyFINAL.pdf to http://www.darksky.org/assets/documents/PR/2011/PRSarkHortobagyFINAL.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sark.info/downloads/government/0603minutes.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sark.info/downloads/government/0609ers_opinionresults.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sark.info/downloads/government/0610minutes.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sark.info/downloads/government/0704minutes.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201213602/http://www.gov.sark.gg/Contacts.html to http://www.gov.sark.gg/Contacts.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109023112/http://www.sarkislandhotels.com/history to http://www.sarkislandhotels.com/history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And one must remember that there is no law of libel in Sark. Molly Romanov (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sark Company Registry

message: Dame of Sark, the memoirs of the 21st Seigneur Sibyl Mary Hathaway, who was present during the German occupation, were made into a play and television drama of the same name.
:Who wrote the play? Valetude (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: William Douglas-Home. Molly Romanov (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dame of Sark (play) 

message: I suddenly found  from ISO Country Codes Collection, this entry says "Refers to the island of Sark and reserved at the request of the United Kingdom.", any ideas on it? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not CQ as ISO 3166 code? 

message: well, not quite.  Cars are banned from the island altogether.
What does it mean that electric bicycles were deregulated?  Allowed?  or not allowed? --134.153.12.171 (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "cars are banned from roads" 

message: nt 2804:431:C7D8:FE70:94D3:AE9E:4502:E7B6 (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation 74 is a dead link