Talk:Micronation/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Older archived talk: Talk:Micronation/Archive1

List of suggested micronations removed from the article

You need to create a real account, and create a new section in the Talk page here (use the + tab at the top) to explain why Middle Korea is notable. Sticking your note up here is not going to get you correct attention. Georgewilliamherbert 08:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth: "Shirat Hayam" is Hebrew for "Song at the Sea", not "Sea's Poetry". It is the Jewish name for the hymn in Exodus chapter 15, which Moses and the Israelites sing after crossing the sea out of Egypt. --Hoziron 06:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Gene Poole

Hey folks! ! !, I'm a mere anonymous member of the public and not a Wikipedia regular, but it seems wrong that "Gene Poole" removes something I carefully added the same day, without consulting anyone. A long time ago in the middle of a big fight over "micronation" he deleted a reference to micropatrology, and I just put a new and accurate cross-reference in. Here's the recent history yesterday: 

(cur) (last)  23:18, 21 August 2005 Gene Poole (remove reference to micropatrology - it is not a formal academic discipline)
(cur) (last)  23:16, 21 August 2005 Gene Poole (add more NPOV reference to micropatrology)
(cur) (last) 20:22, 21 August 2005 24.27.19.186 (restore micropatrology ref somehow lost in earlier "micronation" dispute) - this last was by me -

Gene Poole's statement that "it is not a formal academic discipline" seems totally irrelevant. It was used as a word for the small-country and territory study (including nonacademic hobby study like "philately") in the 1970s and 1980s, including in Washington Post, NY Times, etc. Then some masters and PhD theses were written using the term in the 1990's and on (so it's arguably becoming a bit "academic"). Why should its not being a formal academic discipline exclude it, since it's a useful specialized term that's been used for 30 years? (Unlike "micronation" apparently, it excludes cyberfantasies and always excluded the fictional stuff.) I can't spend the amount of time here to do a big debate, but it seems wrong to let this person dominate a subject and exclude accurate information due to pronounced zeal against whatever he is fighting against. Micropatrology is a neutral word as far as I know. I hope some more formidable Wikipedian than I can restore my cross references to micropatrology from Micronation in the proper way.

The article was deleted in January 2006 as non-notable: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Micropatrology. Among the about 100 Google hits are apparently three groups, (1) "not found" replies by some dictionaries, (2) discussions in online forums about micronations, (3) Wikipedia. This is a rarely used neologism. -- Omniplex 06:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

fictional nations

Um, one question I don't see has been answered is why, if the definition of 'micronation' applies only to fictional nations, are nations which once had real existence also included here? Shouldn't such be considered microstates, instead? - Mike Lorrey 19:05 1/27/05 EST

As far as I can see, the definition doesn't simply apply to fictional nations. In fact, entirely fictional nations seem to be a distinct minority here. The definition seems more concerned with a nation existing but remaining unrecognized. --Centauri 00:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know that this message is months old, but I would like to note that the vast majority of micronations are fictional nations with no real life basis, and not simply a matter of unrecongition. -Bill3000 14:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

PoV template

Looking at the Talk archive and the page History, it looks as though the person insisting on the inclusion of the template has disappeared. If anyone who is actually involved in editing the page thinks that it should be replaced, then fine — but there didn't seeem to be much point leaving it there to disfigure the page.

By the way, if the anon. user who accused me of 'vandalism' for changing 'territory' for 'land' would like to explain instead of indulging in edit-summary insults (and 'retaliating' by editing my user page), we might get somewhere). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the anon user isn't interested in discussion or politeness, only in insisting on an unexplained edit. The difference concerns whether land that's part of a sovereign country, and that was in use by another country's military, is to be described as 'land' or as 'territory'. I take the latter (and the dctionary backs me up here) to involve a political dimension that the former lacks, hence my preference for 'land'. If there's an argument against that, I'd be happy to hear and consider it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is very likely that the "anonymous vandal" is the twice-banned abusive crank editor Wik, aka Gzornenplatz, who was the one responsible for slapping the spurious dispute notice on this page in the first place. His attempts at editing can now simply be reverted as a matter of course. --Gene_poole 21:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I'll be aware in future. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No,I AM NOT A VANDAL!As i explained by the empiere of Moravia article,simply seek out the folowing page: http://www.kingnicholas.com/ read the latest news posted on 13th may and then click on the "as follows" icon where you will find that a Micronation that YOU recognised as such (The Copeman Empiere) has recognised "The Empiere of Moravia" in their response,from witch i quote: "I certainly see no problem in recognising your empire's existence." To the "uninterested in discussion" bit...i had other wories with the actual article and its votes for deletion(i mean [[Empiere of Moravia[[ and Self-proclaimed Emperors of Moravia and thei "government" where on boath i stated the former information of "recognition" Your Tomislav I. or a number i simply cant remember.

This is (at least it tries) to be serious encyclopedia. You may try Uncyclopedia, perhaps you will feel better there. And please use four tildas ~~~~ to sign your comments. Pavel Vozenilek 16:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Animal Farm

Centauri, I'm curious to know why you think that Animal Farm is not a Micronation. In the category of Exercises in fantasy or creative fiction, it is arguably the best known Micronation. Certainly more so than any of the other examples we've noted. Bollar 13:58, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

"Animal Farm" is no more a micronation than "Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars", "Star Trek", "Harry Potter", "Alice in Wonderland", "Narnia" or any other imaginary realm in literature or creative fiction is a micronation. The definition and examples given suggest that the micronations listed are unique entities in their own right - created as specific self-sustaining projects - and not simply the imaginary settings for stories. There is a separate article on imaginary countries, and if anwhere, Animal Farm belongs there. The 2 concepts are distinct and are only indirectly related. --Centauri 03:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

dablink

This article is about small "nations" that are not recognized by any world government. For information on countries that are legitimately recognized, but are geographically tiny ...

The text I cut looks like a disambiguation notice. But it actually creates or exploits ambiguity. It's a sneaky way of legitimizisg micronations by confusing them with microstates - while pretending not to. This is disruptive to Wikipedia.

This is an encyclopedia, not a playground. Let's make it quite clear what the micronation movement is about, without endorsing (or ridiculing) it. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 22:02 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I am removing the link to Empire of Atlantium on this page because the users who add the link are members of this Empire, or know members well enough to allow them to use their Wikipedia account. This is a conflict of interest (especially since the members of Atlantium also delete links to other micronations), so I am removing the link until another known Wikipedia editor feels it is appropriate to mention them. Samboy 17:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I am restoring the links that have been removed by Samboy because they are important to the topic, particularly as they describe a somewhat unique event that is documented in external sources (and which is featured in a BBC television series, no less), which have been properly cited as such. I also note that Samboy appears to have a personal conflict of interest on the subject of micronations due to past conflicts with other editors, which seems to be biasing him against selected content. --Centauri 23:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Samboy that this "Atlantium" self-promotion is inappropriate. The whole detailed description of a single, not particularly notable exhibition seems to serve no other purpose than to get a mention of "Atlantium" in the article. NoPuzzleStranger 14:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see the notability of this event and suggest the entire paragraph be deleted. Bollar 00:18, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The first major exhibition about micronations, held on both sides of the Atlantic and filmed by the BBC as part of a nationally-broadcast TV series is certainly notable enough to belong in Wikipedia's article on micronations.--Centauri 00:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The fact that there was a TV documentary on micronations, isn't, in inself, notable. Nor does it make the participants notable. Even the fact that a few micronations gathered doesn't seem notable. Perhaps something was discussed or revealed that was notable? Hard to say since the program hasn't aired yet.
The fact that it has never happened before is notable. In fact, there is no possible way for it to be not notable. --Centauri 01:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how the "first TV documentary" or "first exhibition" about anything is automatically notable. All the time documentaries or exhibitions are made about the most trivial, unencyclopedic things. And I wouldn't even insist on removing all mention of the exhibition; however, the list of the specific micronations involved is surely not necessary and your insistence on including it just shows your intent to promote your own "empire". NoPuzzleStranger 01:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
This documentary is notable in that the series has sparked a massive level of interest in micronations. Look at the site of the presenter's micronation, citizensrequired.com, now totalling over 20,000 citizens. Graius
The issue here in terms of notability is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. In particular, Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. This is why I do not edit the article on my open-source project and why people involved with the Empire of Atlantium, IMHO, shouldn't be trying to link to the article from other pages. Samboy 03:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

And what has any of that got to do with me, or anyone else here, for that matter? --Centauri 04:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring it up, but this evidence indicates that you share an account with the founder of the Empire of Atlantium Samboy 04:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Can I suggest you look up Occam's Razor? That George Cruickshank has been assisting me with my research for a period of some months now is a matter of public record. That on one occasion he has used the same laptop as me, unwittingly logged in as me, to access Wikipedia is, as you've shown, also a matter of public record. However, to suggest on that basis that I am a member or sympathiser of his micronation is fanciful speculation to say the least. I've also interviewed Prince Leonard of Hutt River Province, Prince Peter of the Principality of United Oceania, Tom Barnes from the Independent State of Rainbow Creek and numerous other Australian micronationalists; by your reasoning this should preclude me from contributing to these topics as well - which is plainly a ridiculous proposition - unless of course your actual motivation is to prevent the inclusion in Wikipedia of information on subjects that you are on record as expressing extreme personal distaste for. --Centauri 05:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
If you don't see how a unique event about a subject that is of obvious broad public interest (if judging by the level of editing activity on this and similar pages over the past few years is anything to go by - and it is), then I can't really help you. I notice that you seem to have a bit of a history with problems of that nature. --Centauri 01:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Broad public interest? You have got to be kidding. No one cares about "micronations". The level of editing activity here is due to revert wars involving a few (well, mostly yourself) POV editors who try to promote their own "micronation" either directly or indirectly by promoting the concept itself, and a few NPOV editors who try to stem that tide. NoPuzzleStranger 01:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't suppose you have any actual evidence to support that eccentric rant, do you? --Centauri 01:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
"Broad public interest". NoPuzzleStranger 01:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Is 34,700 broad enough for you? --Centauri 01:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Google proper does not reflect "public interest", or at least 34,700 is not enough by far. Any individual micronation can produce thousands of hits about itself, and it adds up. Google News, however, shows if the public really cares about something, since you can't easily force your own propaganda into there. NoPuzzleStranger 02:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Of course. It's all part of the grand micronation conspiracy to take over the world - or failing that, Wikipedia. And it's not just the micronations either! The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, who no one cares about, the Mauryan Empire, who no one cares about, and those shifty-eyed Carchemish-promoters who no one cares about are all using Wikipedia to push their secret agendas too. It's a scandal, I tell you! --Centauri 02:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Centauri, thank you for being open about your connection to the micronations movement. I am also open about my leadership in the Unification Church.

You might not be aware of how an apparent conflict of interest can affect one's standing in various situations. I studied this as part of an ethics course, when I was in the US Army.

If I recall the textbook correctly (after 20 years!), it said:

"An officer must not make any decision or carry out any act, as part of his official duties, which accrues to his personal benefit."

This means that an officer must put his duty ahead of any personal interests. If the two conflict, that is the textbook definition of a conflict of interest. Judges don't hear cases involving their own family or property, for the same reason.

But the textbook goes on to say that even the appearance of a conflict of interest can be detrimental to morale, order, etc. It's not enought to "be good". You must inspire others with confidence in your goodness, so you must "look good". Both are needed.

This is not to demean, belittle, or accuse you in any way. I am just proposing a standard for us all to follow at Wikipedia. I guess I should turn this into a Wikipedia:policy page.

I personally hold a lot of controversial opinions, and quite a large number of Wikipedians consider me to be the single most controversial person here on that account. But I have a reputation for being able to write neutrally, even on subjects I feel strongly about - partly because I am quick to reveal my Wikipedia:POV and moreover to ask others to help my overcome any unconscious bias I may harbor. And when others lose faith in my ability to write neutrally on any subject, I withdraw from it (for a while, anyway), e.g., on global warming.

I hope this helps. Cheers. Uncle Ed 12:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's appropriate to conduct a discussion of of this nature on this page, however since you've initiated one I will take the opportunity to respond:
1. I am not part of, nor do I have a "connection to" any "micronation movement" because there is no such thing. I have over the last year or so developed an interest in what is generally accepted to be a notable, albeit eccentric, real historic phenomenon, and to research that phenomenon I have actively sought out those involved in it, as would any reputable researcher.
2. My opinions on the subject of micronations are not at all controversial. They are the same opinions held by most external observers and commentators who have reported or written about them since the 19th century. My opinions are based on facts and reputable sources, and they favour no-one, as all of my contributions to Wikipedia on the subject show.
3. I do not intend to cease contributing to Wikipedia on this subject merely because one or two other editors with troubled histories and an inability to conduct themselves in a civil manner can't deal with others, better-informed than themselves, playing in what they believe to be their sandpit. In fact, events in recent days have motivated me to look beyond the 3 micronation articles I have contributed to date, and I now intend to expand my contributions in this area.
I hope this clarifies things. --Centauri 13:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. So I'll ask you point blank: are you using Wikipedia to promote the concept of micronations? Uncle Ed 13:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it does, and I'd appreciate you doing me the courtesy of reading the comments I've taken the time to write - particularly point 2 above. --Centauri 14:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Since you've refused to answer my question, I no longer feel even a pro forma obligation to assume good faith. I hope this situation changes, but until it does I have to take your refusal into account in all my future decisions. Uncle Ed 21:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't find any reference to a Wikipedia policy that requires me or any other editor to be accountable to, or "answer" questions that make no sense in the context of the discussion, framed for unknown purposes, by Uncle Ed. If you're having trouble understanding me, message me on my talk page. --Centauri 01:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
That was one of the clearest evasive answers I've heard in many a year. For sheer rhetorical skill, I gotta give you some points. :-) So you're off the hook for now. But do please try to cooperate with the project, okay? Uncle Ed 20:45, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be obtuse. I just find the hysterical reaction to micronations some editors here are pushing is downright lame. Asking whether my contributions to articles concerning micronations "promote" them, is like asking whether my contributions to articles about Japanese horror films and anime "promote" them. It's a ridiculous idea to say that writing about something in a way that's factual and neutral "promotes" it. --Centauri 01:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Endorsement and all that it entails

cut from the article:

A "summit of micronations" hosted as part of the exhibition was attended by representatives of Sealand, Elgaland-Vargaland, New Utopia, Atlantium, Frestonia and Fusa

The use of the word representatives implies recognition of the micronations as the sovereign entitities their conceivers claim them to be. Wikipedia should remain neutral on the question of whether these entities are entitled to that recognition. Uncle Ed 20:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Where did you come up with the idea that the word "representative" is somehow intrinsically tied to "sovereignty" ? Maybe you're confusing it with "envoy" or "ambassador" ? A "representative" does just that - he or she represents something; whether that is the local scout troop, the country women's association, a chuch choir or a micronation. Your idea that all micronations are seeking "sovereignty" is also wrong. Have you read the article? --Centauri 01:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
No, a representative is someone who represents some group, and says nothing about sovereignty. Taiwan can and does have representatives, and no one recognizes Taiwan as sovereign. Ditto for Palestine. Ditto for Iraqi insurgents, representatives of which have met with U.S. officials.
The word "summit" already implies that someone recognizes these groups as groups. You have to concede that, if no one else, these micronations recognize each other as micronations. Scope of recognition is another matter. But that arbitrary definition of scope doesn't affect the applicability of the word "representative". And they were certainly called representatives at the summit.
Besides, what would you call them? Can you come up with an as-you-put-it "neutral" word? -- Keith D. Tyler 20:51, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Open response to Samboy

Quite frankly, the handling of and fighting over the micronation article is one of the things that drains my patience for WP of late. It seems to me like the article is constantly whittled down to aggravatingly pendantic vagarity because a crop of people believe that in order for a government to receive their respect, it has to suck up to a larger or more powerful government sufficiently such that the larger government grants their holy magical nod of "recognition". (Which isn't independence, but hegemony.)

"Centauri is trying to add Atlantium" clearly isn't the whole story, as the refs you gave show. You state that C. is trying to add Atlantium to the article. Yes, that's true -- but partially true, as C. is also trying to add Sealand, New Utopia, Fusa, etc., for a total of 6 micronations. But instead, the opponents to this edit have zoomed-in on 1/6th of that list, insisting solely that it is an attempt to include only Atlantium, as part of a paragraph on an event that is both relevant and notable within the subject matter of the article topic. The virulence spent on this focus is quite clearly based on the unproven supposition that C. = GenePoole, a fiercely clung-to belief. What that crusade fails to realize that even if C. does = GenePoole, the addition of 6 micronation's names, listed as attendees of an event, doesn't constitute bias. Does it make sense to exclude one of the nations simply because the poster is affiliated with it? No, that would be counterproductive. Were the content added by someone not affiliated (check that -- not BELIEVED to be affiliated) with one of the listed groups, would there be nearly as fierce an objection to such content? I doubt it.

The position you and others take against inclusion of this kind of content -- and arguments against words like "representatives" which I find rather inexplicable -- illustrates an anti-micronation bias that permeates the ongoing battle over this article and related articles on the topic. If you're against the legitimacy of the subtantial inclusion of the topic itself, which seems to be the case, that's a matter for VFD. If the topic matter is fitting for inclusion, then the matter should be included, and included as fully to encyclopedic and contemporary completeness.

It's not like the world is going to crumble because individuals make noise over their miniature self-government projects and experiments. That doesn't mean they don't exist. They do exist, they have reached a certain level of notoriety thanks to the Internet (and a natural human desire for self-direction in a world where there is no available claimable territory to develop a geographic nation in -- besides, many major modern nations were built on the lands of existing cultures, so how can you compare legitimacy?), and an article covering the topic should not refuse to mention the manifestations and mechanics of that topic.

I was a little suprised (and frankly a little annoyed) to be asked for input on this, as I'm quite far removed from the issue nowadays to be worth bringing into the fold. But I'm afraid I don't support you this time, either.

- Keith D. Tyler 18:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC) (edited on 20:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC))

Thank you Keith D. Tyler. It is good to see someone finally articulating a rational viewpoint on this subject. --Centauri 06:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. This is why I messaged you; because you were opposed to the arbitration against George Cruickshank. Whenever I get in a nasty argument like this, I want to get other points of view so that I can see things from a more neutral perspective. I know this argument is frustrating for you; you can imagine how frustrated I am. Samboy 20:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Should be include "attended by representatives..."

This is a poll about whether the bold part of the section below should be included in this article:

In August 2003 a summit of micronations took place in Helsinki at Finlandia Hall, the site of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). The summit was attended by delegations of the Principality of Sealand, the Kingdoms of Elgaland & Vargaland, NSK-State in Time, Ladonia, Transnational Republic, the State of Sabotage and by scholars from various academic institutions.

From 7 November through 17 December 2004, the Reg Vardy Gallery at the University of Sunderland (UK) hosted an exhibition on the subject of group identity and symbolism as they relate to micronations. The exhibition focused on numismatic, philatelic and vexillological artifacts, as well as other symbols and instruments created and used by a number of micronations from the 1950s through to the present day.

A "summit of micronations" hosted as part of the exhibition was attended by representatives of Sealand, Elgaland-Vargaland, New Utopia, Atlantium, Frestonia and Fusa and will feature in a 5-part BBC television documentary about micronations produced by Danny Wallace and scheduled to screen in the United Kingdom commencing in July 2005.

If you feel the bold part of this sentence should be included, vote yes; if not, vote no. In order to minimize possible fraudulant votes, votes from IPs and from accounts created after July 1, 2005 will not be counted. Please do not include discussion in the vote, include that in the section marked discussion.

YES The bolded part should be included in the article

  1. --Centauri 09:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Keith D. Tyler 20:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC) -- in some form
  3. Carter 00:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. L33tminion (talk) 20:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Daniel C. Boyer
  6. Yuckfoo 04:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Graius 11:59, 17 August 2005 (GMT+1)
  8. --Wilson(cc) 11:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

NO The bolded part should not be included in the article

  1. Samboy 07:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. NoPuzzleStranger 09:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC) Note: Invalid vote by hard-banned editor. See [2].--Centauri 10:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Bollar 11:59, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Calton | Talk 13:21, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Pavel Vozenilek 21:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

DISCUSSION


I wonder if anyone can provide an example in WP where a summit is mentioned with no mention of or reference to its participants. - Keith D. Tyler 21:00, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

When talking about a summit, it seems perfectly legitimate to mention who was there. --L33tminion (talk) 20:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

NO POLLS! Snowspinner 03:02, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Snowspinner. Just put the damn thing in, it's silly not to--the whole point of having a summit (even a ruritanian one like this) is so that representatives can get together and discuss things. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the point is here. It's your article - do what you wish with it. Frankly, I feel most micronation articles do not belong in Wikipedia. Denni☯ 23:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Rome

Does anyone else consider the Vatican a micronation? It fits many of the categories, but all of the micronations here are described as makeshift nations, and most of them are not even recognized. Does the Vatican not fit, or does it?

The Vatican City State is recognised widely as a sovereign state. It is not a micronation. --Centauri 11:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. I added Vatican City as an example microstate at the top so people would not have this confusion. Samboy 22:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


Distinguish between the Vatican State and the Holy See: two distinct entities.

The Order of Malta and Mount Athos could be included under the microstates list rather than micronations. Perhaps a category of "religious microstates" could be created (would there be any other members than these three - not being familiar with non-European equivalents)?

The State of Vatican City is not considered to be a Micronation because it is recognised by the UN. It is however used by many micronationalists to demonstrate that sovereignty and statehood does not rely on the amount of territory possessed --Graius 18:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek

I have just moved all of the content for this nation off of this page. The micronation article is already too long; we don't need more than one sentence for Dominion of Melchizedek here. Samboy 21:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Qero, I agree with you that Melchizedek shouldn't be identified as a micronation, perhaps you could help me with that debate over at the Dominion of Melchizedek article. I tried to identify it alternatively as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty" but there was resistence, so I toned it down to "aspiring to ecclesiastical statehood", but even got resistence for that.
You can read the Wikipedia rules I referenced here:
Wikipedia:Cite sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Verifiability
I don't see how those rules say that anything mentioned in the Washington Post should be treated as fact. Their article says nothing about having checked those claims with CAR authorities. It is likely they just saw the letter which seems to show recognition, but given Melchizedek's whole fraudulent background it may as well be a forgery. I have seen no independent confirmation of it. Qero 19:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
You must not have read the same pages I read about using newspaper articles. The fact that they wrote that Melchizedek gained "diplomatic recognition" from CAR is an independent source confirming the fact. There has never been any newspaper or other source to discredit this fact, that I can find, and in fact, other newspapers have also confirmed it. The Washington Post tracked down a professor in remote Ruthenia to confirm if Ruthenia had a treaty. It is only a few blocks from the CAR Embassy to the Washington Post, so it is hard to belive that they would go to that much trouble for one confirmation and a must easier one down the street, ignore. Unles the Washington Post statement can be disproved, to me it stands as fact.Johnski 19:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

ok, it appears that Melchidzek has been recognised by one country. But recognition of statehood does not in itself elevate an entity into genuine nationhood. If that were all that was needed, the word bantustan would not have been made, and Berwick-upon-Tweed would still be at war with Holland from centuries ago. It would be quite nice to see a proper formal definiton of micro-state. Provisonally, I'd go along with:

"A state is an entity that is formally recognised as such by the majority (ie 50+ %) of such entities that are themselves recognised as states."

And yes, I realise that this definition is open to accusations of being circular. I am open to suggestions that are equally impartial. Rhialto 11:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Micronation/Archive_2&oldid=1085917452"