Talk:Illegal stamp

Section removed

I have removed an entire section which claimed that certain named people were engaged in illegal activities. Such claims are inadmissable without evidence that these people were in fact convicted in a properly established court. Eclecticology 07:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Stan's talk page as it is more appropriate to mention it here for discussion. ww2censor 02:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, you may have seen that Eclecticology removed a lot of material regarding alleged producers of illegal stamps that are well known and documented without any discussion or providing any alternate text. He may be right to remove names but I have yet to consider rewriting some of the known facts on this aspect as I think it is appropriate to the article. ww2censor 16:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Page name & POV

Discussion moved from Stan's talk page per his agreement. ww2censor 02:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at this article. The article purports to recharactrize what was previously called "bogus stamps" as "illegal stamps". It makes reference to the work of the Worldwide Association for Development of Philately (WADP), an association which it claims to be affiliated with the UPU. The entire tone of the article seems highly POV, and I have already removed a section which claimed that certain individuals were involved in the distribution of illegal stamps without showing any evidence that they were ever convicted. I didn't want to go any further with this article without a second opinion. Eclecticology 07:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't get Linn's so I haven't been following the discussions there. Still I think that bogus is a more appropriate term. Illegal implies something that can be prosecuted, and there appears to be very little of that. Counterfeits are certainly illegal, as are forgeries. Bogus stamps could be fraudulent, but who has jurisdiction when neither the stamps in question nor their producers have ever been in the country on the face? The warnings posted with the UPU are wide ranging, and even include the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus whose stamps are included in Scott. "Bogus" can be more strictly defined as stamps falsely purporting to be valid for postage. This would allow room, if needed, to include other intentionally deceptive material, like the Sedang stamps. Stamps from entities such as Biafra and Turkish Cyprus that at least have a sensible rationale for issuing stamps even when nobody recognizes them probably should not be viewed as illegal. Eclecticology 09:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I went over this article quite carefully some time ago and did not any particular POV to it. Regarding the title, the UPU itself calls these type of issues Illegal stamps so I think the title is quite appropriate though bogus might be a consideration but only if better justified than the suggestion above. ww2censor 16:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the various pages from the UPU and WADP one needs to recognize that what the UPU is only publishing the claims of member countries. Those specific claims may have the standing of law in the claimant country, but the claim is more tenuous elsewhere. The ones that I looked at involved questions that go beyond stamps. The claims of Cyprus against Turkish Cyprus, of Azerbaijan against Nagorno-Karabakh, and of Morocco against the Western Sahara get into more meaty political issues that should remaio beyond the scope of this subject. In all three of these instances there is at least a rationale for a de facto political entity with a need for postal services, even if only for limited local usage. The list of issues described by the Moroccans did seem long, and it may very well be that some or all of the mentioned issues are bogus ones issued only to raise funds from the philatelic community, but I do not have the evidence needed to make that distinction.

The suggestion, "The WNS website is therefore a reference tool and a control, by omission, of stamps that have been issued illegally and labels that are claimed to be stamps." strikes me as a dubious legal premise. While there is some justification for considering specified "stamps" to be illegal, saying that omission from the WNS list implies illegality goes too far in contradicting the normal legal presumption of innocence. Unless an act is specifically forbidden by law it is allowable, and therefore not illegal.

I generally find the tone of the article to be argumentative and crusading for a cause. While the underlying theme that "illegal" stamps are not permissible is a sensible one, it seems to be trying to sell us on one particular set of solutions. Eclecticology 08:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish people wouldn't use (even well-known) acronyms without first spelling them out. POV probably means Point Of View but that doesn't fit the context of the several uses here.

I think the term illegal stamps could be a subset of a bogus stamps article. There is room for debate about, for example, Nagorno-Karabakh. But the production of bogus labels which look like stamps and which bear the name of a legitimate country, which are intended to confuse stamp collectors and (eg) sports & film fans into thinking that they are the product of a legitimate postal authority is well documented - see http://www.stamp-scandal.com/ , currently majoring on Afghanistan.

The WADP shows which stamps the Afghan authorities say have been issued by them. Other sites pictured on Stamp-scandal show bogus labels which have been sold widely by dealers and/or on eBay as if they are postage stamps.

Without being able to see the whole article, now apparently decimated by removal of original text but no replacement, it is impossible to comment on the suggestion that the tone is "argumentative and crusading for a cause". It probably is: those who know about these things are generally using all available means to ensure that the nature of these products is known as widely as possible. Given that the term "illegal" is an official UPU one, and that the term has been used for the last 10 years at least in respect of, specifically, labels bearing the names of Former Soviet territories and Russian autonomous republics, the use of the term is correct. As for "one particular set of solutions" - I don't know what those were.

One might think that the solution to the problem lies with the governments of the offended countries. However publicising the situation and making potential buyers aware that what is on offer are not legitimate postage stamps (although they are often claimed to be by the sellers), is equally important. It is a pipe-dream now but if people stopped buying them, by being better informed, then the producers would stop producing them. Norvic48 (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I follow this thread fully. I've revised the section, and heading, to what seems to me to be neutral. I'll remove the tag. I invite anyone to please identify specific words or sentences that you consider too biased. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Illegal stamps. 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/20060816024815/http://www.askphil.org/d000.htm to http://www.askphil.org/d000.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)