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)

References

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 Roger 8 Roger, 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)

Unrecognized flag addition

update 2402:8100:390E:2C51:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Ownership and the infobox

The infobox is not the place for anything but the most factual and important detail: it is not the place to stuff full of agenda based information snippets. Now, the facts - whatever the rights and wrongs of what happened 200 years ago, or the legal basis on which the USA based its claim back then, the facts are that today the USA has enjoyed uninterrupted active possession ever since then. That is the basis on which the USA has sovereignty. That is a fundamental part of international law, developed over hundreds of years. If that claim has been constantly disputed by Haiti, that does not change that fact. If it has not been constantly disputed, then Haiti has no case. I know some editors love to make a big deal over minor points of interest, but there really is a limit. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The "disputed" label isn't an agenda. It's accurate, factual, and relevant. The U.S.'s 168-year-long claim of the island is made clear by the big U.S. flag at the top of the infobox. Per MOS:IBP, an infobox should "summarize ... key facts that appear in the article." The Haitian claim, which has been constant since the U.S. made a claim and which has included Haitian military expelling U.S. guano miners from the island in the 1890s, is a notable part of the history (and current state) of the article. Even the CIA World Factbook acknowledges the dispute; there's no reason for us to not do the same (both in the article and in the infobox).—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

First, please change your wording. The island is not 'claimed' by the USA, it belongs to the USA. You are trying to cast doubt on that unquestionable fact. If Haiti has a claim, that is a separate matter. There is no 50-50 about it. This is not like the Russian occupation of Ukrainian land where there is a certain level of ambiguity. That Haitian claim does need to be mentioned, but only in the article itself. It is not important enough for the infobox.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

"Claim" is the term used in the U.S. Code: "48 USC Ch. 8: GUANO ISLANDS, §1411. Guano districts; claim by United States". Also, under the act, it appertains (or belongs) to the U.S. at the discretion of the president. Nothing about the disputed label in the infobox contradicts any of that or even calls it into question, and nothing in MOS:IBP points towards inclusion of the Haitian claim as inappropriate. You seem to be asserting that mentioning the Haitian claim in the infobox gives undue credence to the claim, but simply including the Haitian claim and clearly noting the administration of the island by the United States neutrally presents the facts as they exist. Comparing to Serranilla Bank or Bajo Nuevo Bank, both of which the U.S. claims as its territory despite belonging (in your use of the term) to Colombia, it may be that Navassa Island should use {{Infobox island}} instead of {{Infobox settlement}} as it currently does. Perhaps the presentation of that infobox would be more acceptable to you.—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Some other sources were removed I noticed. Time Magazine had a well researched piece which was in the article before about the fisherman who provided the said 'claim' to USA: Setting up the whole US claim--. "Both the U.S. and Haiti Claim Navassa Island. Here’s Why Its History Matters" -- Time Magazine; Miami Herald also had a well researched piece that I can try to find as well."Did the U.S. steal an island covered in bird poop from Haiti? A fortune is in dispute". It's not USA/Haiti only. Cuba and Haiti both signed maritime agreements lodged at the U.N. which divide the boundary between both countries equally between the two extending the dispute to third parties in terms of recognition regionally. I cannot remember if there was a small bump-out in the Cuba-Haiti deal was formed between both to facilitate the 'outer most' point of the territorial EEZ was afforded for Navassa on the Haiti ("half") side.

Additionally, Haiti has been rallying support by the other states of the CARICOM community to back Haiti's claim on the island to basically still recognize Haiti's ownership of it in the Americas. I believe that might still be on Google Books. And Haitian boats persons continue to visit the Navassa whereas the USA actually bans Americans from visiting the island unless they have a special permit if you're an American wanting to go there. Meaning actual U.S. usage may be lesser of the two. The Guano which the USA wanted. Has long been all harvested to boot. It's been all farmed out. Duke Law School has a researched piece on the contest of this island in the International context. "(Navassa: Property, Sovereignty, and the Law of the Territories)". I don't get into the middle of Russia/Ukraine with it's own long litany of conditions like does the Russian base at Crimea count as Occupation when it's been there from since before Ukraine even broke off as a country, and a whole set of "what-ifs" like if Kive(Kyve et. al) runs out of money completely etc. but this here Haiti/USA dispute doesn't appear to be over as asserted. At least not truly "settled" for example how the International Court of Justice and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Europe recently settled the historic Mauritius/UK dispute over Diego Garcia (Chagos Islands). That was truly taken to court and adjudicated after hearing the claims of both sides and judges making a declaration and the outcome having a binding resolution globally. CaribDigita (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Flag

add official flag of the island. ~2025-31142-61 (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2025 (UTC)