Talk:Micronation/Archive 4

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

Republic of Mirage Islands

Someone converted a stub on the "Republic of Mirage Islands" into a redirect that points here. However, there is no mention made of it in the article. Would someone here who knows what category it belongs to add it? TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirect. I can't find any verifiable evidence from any reliable source that this exists, other than the information given on the website linked in the article. Werrington Downs, the location given for their "consulate", is landlocked, and the website does not give any location for the islands themselves, so I think WP:WEB applies, unless there is some external evidence that this is more than just a website. I've now put it up for AfD. -- The Anome 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one who redirected. I couldn't find any sources either, but I guess I was being cautious. Deletion is probably a better course of action. PubliusFL 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to place it in the "fraudulent" subsection of this article? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I actually bought a strange single-face coin from this micronation recently, so I know it definitely "exists". The last time I looked at their website they had also published a street address in the far western suburbs of Sydney as their "embassy" - but I've not yet been able to verify this with a drive-by. I suspect it's probably largely the product of some teenager's over-active imagination. --Gene_poole 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that is an impulsive comment, we should give user Askari Mark, a chance to prove the nations claims. Sloveniaiscool 17:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Askari Mark doesn't support the nation's claims. In fact, he voted to delete the article in question. PubliusFL 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
PubliusFL is correct, I am not a proponent. I help wikify Dead-end pages and when I came across Republic of Mirage Islands, I deemed that it was unsuited to be a Wikipedia article in its own right. However, I was unsure whether it might be appropriate to merge into this article, if only to include it as one of the frauds as an aid to readers. I feel the editors active here would be a better judge of that than I. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloveniaiscool is just trolling again. Best to ignore him. --Gene_poole 12:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User Gene Poole is just being negative again, how is giving someone time to show valid sources trolling? Sloveniaiscool 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Duchy of Bohemia

An apparent SPA keeps adding this micronation to the article, with no source other than the micronation's own web site. Is anyone aware of any independent reliable sources to verify the notability of this micronation? PubliusFL (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to stake my life on the likelihood that there is no such source. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I´m from Bohemia and I never hear of it. Yopie 23:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Peaceland

I added ′′Peaceland ′′ in the activist states. It´s notable, because was cited in official Czech press agency, Russian press agency and in Czech main news page. Probably it is same as Waveland.Yopie 23:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks like Waveland v2.0. Good find! PubliusFL (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Forvik

Here's another: the 2.5 acre island of Forvik Should it be included? You decide, I'm just a visitor. –TS

got coverage on The News Quiz, but that's about it so far! Not sure it's notable enough yet.ninety:one 21:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the Reuters coverage cited above, there's this article in The Guardian and a few other news articles. I think it might merit a mention. PubliusFL (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganising the page

Here is a plan on how I would reorganise this article. This should cut down on the amount of sections.

--> Introduction

--> Definition

--> History

---> Early history

---> 1960-1980

---> Australian developments

---> Effects of the internet

--> Categories

---> Social, economic, or political simulations

---> Exercises in personal entertainment or self-aggrandisement

---> Exercises in fantasy or creative fiction

---> Vehicles for agenda promotion

---> Entities created for allegedly fraudulent purposes

---> Historical anomalies and aspirant states

---> New-country projects

--> Legitimacy (See also: constitutive theory of statehood and declarative theory of statehood)

--> Academic, literary and media attention

--> Micronational currencies (See also: List of micronational currency systems)

--> Gallery

--> See also

--> References

--> External Links

We also need some more images, particularly photographs of the micronations and micronational currency. I own quite a few stamps, coins and banknotes from micronations which I can scan and add to Wikipedia. Also, we only need a few examples per category, this isn't the list of micronations. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 08:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Please, this great change need be discussed with others contributors, all deleted micronations must be moved to list of micronations or can be created new articles. --Yopie 15:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
They are examples, which means that we only need a few (3,4 or 5) to represent each category. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have moved all the deleted micronation to the list of micronations talk page so we can simultaneously improve this article and keep all the information on the deleted micronations available. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't edit my words in talk. --Yopie 22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Words? - I never edited any of your words. You mean those bullet points? They're not words, they're not even supposed to be here, please read WP:TP on how to reply to comments. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Citation from [page guidelines]: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.".--Yopie 18:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you please point out where I struck out your comments? You have still failed to explain how I edited your words, and now you say that I struck them out? So please explain to me why anybody would strike out words which they changed to favor their argument, and how bullet points are "words".
As I said, I'm not going to change it back, even though I have explained several times why bullet points aren't used. This is my last comment on the matter. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

adding references

I just happened to read this article today. It is really interesting but it looks like it needs more references. May I get started on that? I am a newbie so I won't make any edits in the article itself (other than the references) and I would be happy to hear suggestions or to help out any other way also.aharon42 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. This article definitely needs some improvement, especially with references. Edit the article itself if you think any mistakes need to be corrected, and if you are interested in micronations you can join our WikiProject here: WP:MICRON. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Successful Microstates

Could we list some successful microstates? Examples might include Israel and other aspirational states which were successful in getting independence. --MacRusgail 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Every single real country was without exception, at some point, a gleam in someone's eye - in effect, a microstate. Your index of successful microstates can therefore be found at list of real countries. If you mean a list of such states in modern living memory, I'm not sure those aren't better discussed as political movements rather than microstates. Rhialto 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I like Bill Bryson's comment "A language is a dialect with an army." The same could probably be said of the difference between a state and a microstate. ElizaBarrington (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Seborga

The inclusion of Seborga amoung historical anomalies is wrong, because it is a normal municipality of Italy. I'm graduated in History and NEVER heard about it before these days. The "document" cited by micronationals as the ancient base for their claim is a fake, or, better, it doesn't exist. I wrote to their official site asking WHERE this document is, planning to ask the permission to examine it, if existing, but they simply ignored my mail. By the way, the "principality" attracted a lot of tourists, expecially from abroad (the few Italians knowning about only laugh at it), which means it was a good tourist-call. The so-called "prince", a retired hand in agriculture, is often around places attended by tourists, expecially Sanremo, trying to call attention. Recently, I heard that a business man involved in the project of Gemini Islands micronation (really, Gemini Islands are only two reefs on Elba Island, where a natural park has to be established)is involved in Seborga, too. I recommend to move this voice to the one about micronations created fo some specifical purpose (in this case: tourist-calling). If some of you knows WHERE this "ancient document" is, please let me know. I'll read this discussion for news. Valerio from Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.118.40 (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What "ancient document" are you referring to? Seborga has never, to my knowledge, claimed that its alleged legitimacy is based on any "ancient document". --Gene_poole 11:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
He may be referring to the fact that Seborga was not accounted for in the Congress of Vienna, or the Act of Unification of Italy 1912, a fact upon which it bases its claims for independence. Neither of these, however, are ancient. Izax143 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Micro cover.jpg

The image Image:Micro cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

North Dumpling Island

Eccentric inventor Dean Kamen declared the independence of North Dumpling Island and signed a non-aggression treaty (albeit tongue-in-cheek) with US President George Bush Snr. Surely this is at least noteworthy. 210.50.142.164 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Ian Ison

Sure... show us a reliable source to prove this claim... - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
North Dumpling does exist, it's in Lonely Planet. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Include pop culture links?

Based on the examples presented in Australia and elsewhere, a great example in pop culture can be found in Petoria from Famliy Guy. Goodnight3455 15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that Petoria was mentioned in this article at one point. I'm fairly certain there are enough general cultural references to micronations to justify the addition of such a section. --Gene_poole 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The new Bethesday game, Fallout 3, for xbox 360 features a democratic micronation called "The Republic of Dave". The republic of Dave seems to be an exercise in self-aggrandizement by the self-elected president, Dave. There are regular elections, but Dave is the only candidate. The children are educated, but only in a fictional heroic history of President Dave. Dave himself seems to take all women of age as his wives. The player can convince various citizens to oppose Dave in the next election, and then rig the election so that Dave loses. After losing, Dave leaves The Republic of Dave to start yet another micronation in the ruins of a city, where he is the only citizen. It is suggested that the citizens of the Republic of Dave are much better off after his departure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.137.200 (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Principality of Dubeldeka

This is a micronation near to Mittagong/Bowral in NSW, Australia, that I have visited. There is one news article on the web, http://bowral.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/lodge-secedes-to-form-new-country/270714.aspx However this is not deemed as being notable by Yopie. I have now scanned two news articles that were faxed to me from Dubeldeka, a passport and the back of an envelope with a crest on it. The scanned images can e viewed in this on-line photo album: http://s719.photobucket.com/albums/ww198/wikispecial/.

What more needs to be done so that Dubeldeka can be included in the "Australian Developments" section.

PS do not undo these edits. they are done by "140.247.85.118" from another location. 140.247.85.118 (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


As there were no more comments I went ahead and inserted the entry again. If there are reasons to remove the entry, can we please discuss it here in detail. 140.247.85.118 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • 1. This is talk page. not chat, so newest talk must be in bottom of the page, not somewhere in the middle. So I moved your talk to right place.
2. Micronations mentioned in article Micronation are as examples, for all notable micronations see List of Micronations.
3. Principality of Dulbeka isn't notable, coverage in local newspaper isn't reliable (see WP:RS) Take a look on references in List_of_micronations, as references are used The Times, one book from Lonely Planet, New York Tribune etc. --Yopie 09:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yopie: Thanks for moving this section to the right place. Is there any point trying to insert it into the List of Micronations as you suggested in your edit of the micronation page, or is someone going to do the same thing that you did here? 140.247.85.118 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Types of Micronations

I've added a section entitled 'types of Mmicronations' to explain about the diferent forms which micronations take. I think this section is relevant and contains some useful information, but I know micronations on wikipedia is somewhat of a sensitive matter. I ask for a discussion before merely deleting it as so often happens, because if you feel the need for it to go, I would like to see what other people have got to say. I belive it is an important subject for micronations and wish for it to remain, but if anyone else things it is irelevant, please say so here. Kentynet (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your section looks like original research, please add some references, or this section will be deleted. --Yopie 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Montevideo definition

The Montevideo definition of statehood is not universally accepted. The Westphalian definition (named after the Westphalian treaties of 1648) requires international recognition. A state only exists in coherence with other states. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove "Micronation#Categories" section, and differentiate List of Micronations

If there are no objections, I am going to remove this section of the article, which breaks micronations down by type. However, instead of getting rid of the content, am simply going to add the categorization of micronations to the List of micronations article. No need to have both the section and the list. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical anomalies and aspirant states

Would there be any objection to moving the section Micronation#Historical_anomalies_and_aspirant_states to the Microstate article? Hiberniantears (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Link farm

I removed from the article a link farm of external links. In that edit summary I said I was moving them here. As I was in the process of pasting them in, it became obvious that most clearly did not meet WP:OR. These might. Please discuss and return will be based on whether community consensus supports inclusion in the article.

    • Please stop deleting valid external links wholesale! You are deleting reference sources from reputable publishers (Lonely Planet), registered numismatic organisations, researched and thoroughly referenced university papers and websites that are referenced in print media articles, among other things!. --124.171.250.69 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Also, the the majority of the links being deleted seem to be in perfect conformance with WP:EL, so I can't see how 'original research' enters into it at all, really. --124.171.250.69 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
No, they do not meet the requirements. "#2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting. " for one thing. As the person wishing to include them it is your responsibility to convince the community that each site has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with User:TheRedPenOfDoom on this one. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
By deleting these links in a wholesale manner, without rational justification you are engaging in vandalism. If you wish to suggest that Lonely Planet is unreliable, the burden of proof lies with you. If you wish to suggest that a widely referenced (including by Lonely Planet) university paper written by an accepted authority on this subject who has been interviewed in nationally-televised programming, and which includes a list of citations longer than your arm is unreliable, the burden of proof lies with you. If you wish to suggest that the website of a coin club specialising in this field affliated with the American Numismatic Association, and whose site is used as a reference by Krause Publications (the world's leading numismatic publisher) is unrelable, the burden of proof lies with you. If you wish to sugest that a coin and stamp archive site referenced by multiple press articles is unreliable, the burden of proof lies with you. If you wish to suggest that online discussion websites about micronations are somehow misleading or not relevant to this article, the burden of proof lies with you. I eagerly await your multiple proofs. If your proofs are not forthcoming, I will restore the relevant content, and trust that you will not vandalise it again. --124.170.58.216 (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The reliability of most of the sources was just the first reason; for example the links to stamp and coin collecting sites are not about "Micronations" but about "Collecting stamps of micornaitons" and "collecting coins about micronations" per ELNO #13 "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject."
Online discussion site fail ELNO #10 "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists."
And "wholesale deletion" of inappropriate matter does not require your approval nor does it count as vandalism. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Your logic is specious. You are now trying to justify your actions by arguing for the blanking of links to general sites on the basis that they are too general, and specific sites on the basis that they are too specific. I continue to await some rational proofs from you. --124.170.58.216 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You have clearly misread, the WP:BURDEN is on the person wishing to add or return content.
Microcation coins are not micronations. It is quite likely that you would be able to find reliable sources to create an article specifically about coin collecting for micronations and you would be able to argue for inclusion of that site on the article about micronation coin collecting, but it is not a valid link at this article.
I have started a section below for discussing the Lonely Planet site. I suggest the most productive way to move forward is for you to create similar sections for particular links giving your rationale for inclusion to see where the community consensus lies.-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you familiarise yourself with your policy. It refers specifically to SOURCES referenced within the body of an article - not EXTERNAL LINKS. It is misleading to deliberately confuse the two. YOU are the one proposing the outlandish non-mainstream position that a number of reliable, commonly-cited, topic-specific sources that are accepted by most people familiar with this subject as being reliable and topic-specific, are all somehow NOT reliable or topic specific just because YOU say so. The burden of proof therefore lies with YOU to justify your outlandish non-mainstream position - NOT on me to DISprove the outlandish non-mainstream position you have chosen to attempt to promote. And recruiting buddies to support your crusade is not something I'd recommend. --124.170.58.216 (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to discuss particular links, please start appropriate sections below. This, however has devolved into a rant and will lead nowhere productive. Good night.-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to engage in productive discussion and/or editing of this article I suggest you provide proofs to support your position, as I have already repeatedly asked you to do. If you continue to fail to justify your position within a reasonable timeframe, it is my intention to restore all relevant links to the article. Your behaviour here suggests that you are attempting to devalue and degrade the subject by removing an entire slab of topic-specific external links - including a range of reliable third party reference sources - which serve to enhance the content of the main body of the article and provide casual readers with the means of seeking out additional information on the subject, should they wish to learn more - which of course is the purpose of having external links in wikipedia articles in the first place. This suggestion is lent further weight by the fact that you are attempting to justify your actions with highly selective, subjective mis-readings of policy, combined with a range of personal assumptions that are factually incorrect. I strongly suggest you review your position and modify your editing behavior to address these perceptions. --124.170.58.216 (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you want to continue the battle I will refer you again to our guideline on external links, the second paragraph: "Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." (emph added)
You need to provide the justification for each link.
And WP:BURDEN is part of verification which is "is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." (emph added) As a content policy it applies to all content of the article, not simply that which is used for citations.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Having reviewed the list, I can't see any reason to restore those links. None of them appear to serve any express purpose that cannot be better achieved through the improvement of the article itself. In fact, many seem only indirectly relevant. --Ckatzchatspy 05:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Simon Sellers - Lonely Planet author's personal site as external links

An editor has suggested that the following links meet our guidelines for external links and would be valuable additions to the article (see above). Please discuss. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

discussion of Simon Sellers links

Currently, the links appear to be down, which is not a good sign that the links meet ELNO #16 "Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time." -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be mistaken. The numerous relevant links on Simon Sellars' site appear to be working just fine. --124.170.58.216 (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, the link above does work, but it fails WP:ELNO #5 "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," - its a webpage of the guy pimping his book. The book itself appears to have been published by a reputable press and so citing relevant content in the article to the book would appear to be appropriate (per WP:EL "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it"), but as a stand alone external link, no.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Pretty certain these 124.170.58.xx IP's are just User:Gene_Poole. Not sure why he doesn't want to use his user ID any longer, as it hasn't been blocked for months. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It passes WP:ELNO. #5 "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," Note emphasis. The site does not primarily exist to sell a product or service. It's primarily a personal website by a published author, one page of which discusses one of the books he's contributed to. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The web site may be a personal blog, which are always iffy inclusions under WP:EL anyway, but the 2 ofthe first three items on the web page are links to "buy from Amazon" and "buy from Amazon.UK" Clearly this is _page_ is intended to be commercial promotion. Besides, if the book itself does not conatain any valid information that we would use as a source for content in the article, why would we include it in an external link?-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Your reasoning is unsound. The website does not exist primarily to sell products or services. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

removed Goust

I removed Goust from the Historical Anomalies section. In my opinion (and it really is simply an opinion) the section should only include current, active claims because a) otherwise, the list will become very long (esp. in medieval times with thousands of smaller states and independence-claims it can get extremely messy) and b) wikipedia already has a List of historical unrecognized countries. Comments/opinions? Seb az86556 (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning - anything current or past, existant or long dead, that is identified by a reliable source as a "micronation" would be appropriate content for the article. However, I do not object to the removal at this time as it had no source calling it a "micronation" -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed.Seb az86556 (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

sources problems

I added a line into the article stating that Merriam Webster's does not give any definition for the term "micronation." Said line was promptly deleted as "irrelevant, MW is not ultimate arbitor of words." I have no objection to my wording's being deleted, but I do think we should at least somehow mention the fact that (to my knowledge) no major, traditional reference source even seems to know about the term. Isn't that worth mentioning in some fashion? Seb az86556 (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, would US Native American "Indian Reservations? be considred Micronations?

The article did not address. If US American Native "Indian" reservations could be considred "Micronations(Microstates?) In California and other US States many Indian Resrvations have Gambling Casinos even there own Police forces.Outside of the local Police forces. Thanks(dated By the Emperor of Nova California,Day PM Tu.Sept.8,2009 21stcent. Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC>)Merci'!ANDREMOI (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say No, for a simple reason: By definition, micronations are unofficial. If a group of Choctaw were to go to ancestral lands in Mississippi and declare themselves to be a new Choctaw country, that would be a micronation. The reservation in Oklahoma, however, is recognized by the United States as an autonomous jurisdiction; it is not a micronation. In a similar vein, the "homelands" created in South Africa during apartheid would not have been considered micronations, as these territories had a recongized status. TechBear (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Further, small countries are not considered micronations. In some situations, such as city states, they are often referenced as microstates. However, at the end of the day, a country is a country, and a micronation is neither a country, nor a nation... large or small. A micronation is just a term for an organization of people who raise public awareness for something (whether it be their coin selling business, a fraudulent scheme to steal money, or a political cause) by creating a fake country for the sake of attracting some free media to to their cause. This is one of the main reasons that so few dictionaries define the word micronation, as very few people can even agree on what constitutes such a thing. Regardless of what a micronation actually is... it most certainly is nothing like a country. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Micronation Day?

is there a Micronation Day to recognze the status of theses "nations"? Article did not say.Thanks(dated AMSnOct18,200921stCent.)DREDSONANDREJOHNSON (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)DDULC

Not that I heard of Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any particluar reason for the ultiple accounts? (e.g. ANDREMOI (talk · contribs) above, and then this one a month later...) - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
A-ha... I see this is an ongoing sock problem, Andreisme (talk · contribs)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of a Micronation Day, but some micronations celebrate Norton Day on January 8. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 01:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Heard theres a new Micronations Day Every First of Winter?

Hear theres a New Micronations Day every First Day of Winter Dec.21st?NewImpAndre (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of it. --Terminator484 (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Legitimacy

A micro-nation meets the requirements of the Monte Video Accord. It is biased to place the sentence that micronations do not meet the requirements and may, therefore, not be a nation.

I also do not understand how it does not meet said requirements.

Wikifriendawesome 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Montevideo Convention you're referring to is just that - a convention. It's merely one way of defining what a sovereign state is and isn't. In any case, no micronation unequivocally meets the terms of the Montevideo Convention, and no micronation has bilateral relations with any established sovereign state. If it did it would no longer be a micronation. --Gene_poole 21:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that the Montevideo convention only says that a nation requires the capacity to enter into relations with other states, not that it must be in a relation with other states. Besides, what about micronations that have relations with other micronations? Assuming each of the participating micronations fits the other criteria (territory, population, government), why would they not be states, since they would then fit all the requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FutureDragon (talk • contribs) 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

differentiation

Hi, we should distinguish between two things:

  1. Micronations in terms of small states which are not accepted as states but are real existing
  1. Virtual states in terms of communities or role-play-games in the internet.

Although they sometimes use the same word "micronation", they are to completly different things and should be treated in two different articles.

--JazzmanDE 02:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not different things. Micronations do not neccesarily have to exist in the real world and can be purely internet based, as many are. Izax143 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
But there is a fair amount of difference between a nation that for all intents and purposes exists, but has no recognition by say the UN, from a micronation of one person, from a micronation of sevearl dozen of more people from a micronation that actually seeks to become a real nation. The article seems to lump them all into the "eccentric" one man nation category in the summary at the beginning. Tonerman (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with JazzmanDE and with some of Tonerman's comments, and I'd like to offer why. As the page stands now, "micronation" is differentiated from "imaginary countries" by their staked claim(s), whether recognized or not by whomever, to actual physical territory extended in 3D space. Internet "nations/countries/etc." do not fit this definition and should therefore be placed into an altogether different category given this important distinction. Further, it appears that the conflation is maintained at the expense of trivializing palpable micronations and maintaining a vague boundary between them and virtual ones, but really there should be a clear delineation even by the definitions as they are so far provided on the page. Aestheticvalidity (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Global Country of World Peace

The Global Country of World Peace was declared by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 2000 to be a "country without borders for peace loving people everywhere". It has a capital (Vlodrop, The Netherlands, or Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa), a king and prime minister, local administrators across the world, a flag, and a currency (RAAM). At one point they tried, unsuccessfully, to lease land for a "Vatican-like sovereign city-state". They have built dozens of Peace Palaces and towers of invincibility in numerous countries. It is not, strictly speaking, a "micronation" because it does not claim any sovereign territory. However it has much more infrastructure than an imaginary nation. Would it be a suitable entry in this article?   Will Beback  talk  09:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Another detail is that the GCWP made several serious attempts to buy or lease land for a sovereign nation. See Global Country of World Peace#Efforts to obtain sovereignty. While it's not an exact fit, the closest category among those listed on this article seems to be "New-country projects". I'll put in some text there and if anyone has a better idea we can move it.   Will Beback  talk  05:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The addition was reverted. I asked the editor why and he said it is not a micronation and it if it is then it belongs in List of micronations.[1] I don't see the logic of that, or how the list is different from the lists here. This article includes several proposed micronations, so the lack of true sovereignty doesn't seem to be a cause for exclusion. I'd like to get input on how to best cover this issue.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Seeing no further input, I'll restore the material.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I think putting it in the list is important for such an organisation as long as it has notable third party resource to back it up --Sukehisashi (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sealand/Conch Republic/Molossia

Why are Sealand, the Conch Republic, and the Republic of Molossia included? They aren't micronations, because all three are recognized by at least one macronation: the Conch Republic and Molossia by the United States, Sealand by Great Britain and Germany. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

no they're not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
They've just been acknowledged. 97.96.65.108 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I think including them is considered important information for micronation --Sukehisashi (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Any acknowledgement would necessarily have a reliable source one could post a reference for. Please post the references. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
i dont know about the rest but sealand's claims of recognition are bassed off the fact that germany sent people the get them to stop holding some people prisoner who had tried to invade sealnad, and britain is only claimed because they backed off after they were shot at for trying to fix a buoy. theres no real recognition, like a embassy. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Flandrensis

This is a short documentary (in Dutch) of the Belgian micronation Flandrensis. Is the source reliable enough for adding a page on wikipedia? --Lyam Desmet (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is: no! This is an item on a local tv-station about some people and their hobby. gidonb (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
In that case you saved my time and effort here. I already tried to made a page when this micronation was shortly mentioned on the Belgian national television and a Dutch travelmagazine, but that was also a waste of time. But more than half of all micronations mentioned on the page are hobbies and many references are unimportant websites. So I thought: why this micronation not? --Lyam Desmet (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
If you find micronations that are equally unworthy of an article, please AfD them! gidonb (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Brazil and Denmark

Why is it relevant to detach micronations from Australia and New Zealand and not simply put them on the categories that indeed fit them? Is it not perhaps the finger of one or two micronationalists from Australia trying to call more attention to their own projects in detriment of others? If this divide continue, then I would like to suggest also Europe and Russia and Brazil and Argentina, and China and Japan, and USA and Canada, and so forth. It just sounds like bias as Australia has no more micronations and no more micronational history or activity as Brazil or Denmark for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordlicious (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Micronation," a neologism (and a bad one at that)?

Once "Micronation" and "Microstate" were roughly synonymous. "Micro" denotes smallness not dubiousness or bogusness. The subject of this page is not "small nations," per se, but putative, aspirational, hoax, or imaginary states of any size. Their size is mainly limited by certain psychological factors. "Micronation" only recently acquired this instant use widely on the internet--mainly since 2002 or so. There is a cite to Wallechinsky & Wallace "People's Almanac" which is hardly scholarly, but it was printed. Excepting that case, is there any reliable source that uses it this way and is not based on random internet material? It seems to me that an article on hoax and imaginary nations is warranted, as is an article on putative sates, like Transnistria, and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. The fact that it may be disputed which article Sealand should lie under illustrates the utility of the distinction, not any weakness in it. As it is, the article is filled with gooey novelty and is rather unencyclopedic. It masquerades as an article about a topic, but it is really just a collage of material that rightly belongs in different articles. This all comes back to the fact that "Micronation" is now a chimeric term that has come to mean exactly whatever the Wikipedia article on "Micronation" says it means, and nothing more--and that is changing by the minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.128.71 (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Pontinha (micronation)

Is anyone familiar with this?

BBC Radio 4 coverage this morning, and an interview with Baron Kevin Allmond, their new ambassador to the UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hdnqn

Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Lundy in the 13th century

As the link to Lundy shows, this was set up as rebel state by William Marisco in 1235. Should this be included?--Streona (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no - he had armed forces and territorial control, so he qualifies as a warlord or at least a violent non-state actor. Micronations don't tend to be that serious. Rwestera (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Have founded since 2005! NOVATESLALAND How does one get recognation?

Founded NOVATESLALAND,(after Inventor Nikola Tesla 1856-1943(hopefully an oil platform like Micronation between Iceland and Europe to Send Gnerate Geo Thermal Energy WiRESLESSLY( per an Idea of Invbentgor Tesla) To Europe Bur hoiw does one register go about getting even some "FAME" with a Micronation? Let alone get RECOGANTION! Thanks!SPQRANDRE (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot answer that. Try the United Nations. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Lesson One: learn how to spell. Jeff in CA 19:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand Developments

There are no New Zealand micronations in the list - do any actually exist? Should this be just "Australian Developments"?--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Moon

Can the Moon be regarded as a micronation in the sense that it is claimed by Dennis Hope (and others) but the claims aren't recognized. The term "Micronation" does not seem to refer to the actual size of the land "owned", as is proven by other "micro"-nations such as Westarctica, which is a good part of a continent. This is also the case with other claims made by in Antarctica and other places. The rule of thumb seems to be that if it's a private individual that claims it, then it's a micronation... (and perhaps this last thing itself could be mentioned in the article?) Any thoughts? BigSteve (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

i may be wrong but i believe the moon is not a soveriegn cuntry and is offically owned by the USA on behalf of the people of earth thanks to appollo 11 and the planting of a flag of ownership. antartica however could be deemed a micronation as its a law onto itself with the scientists the form of government. however this is disputed if you factor in the "offical" country owned zones of the region (something that appears on paper but is not practiced or honored in any reality)152.91.9.153 (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

See Outer Space Treaty and Extraterrestrial real estate. In short, no, the moon is the moon, not a micronation. Acroterion (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative governments

I dispute the inclusion of "alternative governments" as a class of micronation. The definition provided in the non-scholarly source regarding the matter was written by an acquaintance of mine with no reliable expertise on the matter, and the sole provided example lacks any citation at all, let alone notability (there are absolutely no references to it in any internet source I can find, and is not referenced in any written references I have encountered about micronations). Uberstadt (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


Kingdom of Vovovitsa

It can be argued that the former Kingdom of Vovovitsa was a micronation. 77.85.21.100 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Reinstate list of Aus/NZ entities?

The list of former micronations in Australia and New Zealand was recently deleted for being uncited and/or hoaxes. I believe we should revert this. From the heading, the focus of the article is entities that are not officially recognized by world governments or major international organisations. All of these places did actually exist as micronations under that definition, and there are no shortage of citations on the other WP entries that are linked. As far as I can tell, none of those other WP pages are themselves hoaxes. I suggest reverting the deletion, or possibly turning it into a footnote table of links or See Also list. jxm (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree. Looks like some anon dislike micronations in Australia.--Yopie (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

UTSH

A decision has come up about discussing whether or not to include micronation organisation UTSH with 19 members in the Australia and New Zealand Development section. The article contain a notable third party resource that can be obtain from the Open University of Japan, the Higashi Nippon International University and the South Pacific Research Center (there should be more places you can obtain a copy, but I personally not too sure). The micronation organisation UTSH is also recognized by three other micronation organisations(The Republic of Molossia, The Kingdom of Vikesland and The Kingdom of Talossa)--Sukehisashi (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you must say, where we can find this article, it is not reliable source.--Yopie (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Is an ISSN numbered resource, you should be able to look for it anywhere, thank you.Sukehisashi (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
How about you post the complete reference, author, etc. here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The reference can be found in the link behind the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.192.233 (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Even if we had access to the reference, which we don't, it appears to be in Japanese. Please provide an English translation. Yworo (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The United Territories of Sky Haven(UTSH)is now being added to the Australia and New Zealand Development section once again. TimLobeg (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Even though the very issues that led to consensus in favor of its removal in 2010 still exist? Uberstadt (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative governments revisited

I propose the removal of the section on alternative governments, even though there are now sources provided. The only entity listed is the Republic for a United States of America, but more importantly, the only source provided describing these supposed "altgovs" and connecting the concept to micronations is a self-published one by an author without professional or academic credentials on the matter, violating WP:OR. Uberstadt (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Holy Empire of Reunion is Notable

The Holy Empire of Reunion is cited on the New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/25/technology/utopian-rulers-and-spoofs-stake-out-territory-online.html Cited on BBC here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/413420.stm Its minted coin is cited on the very "Micronations" wikipedia page (even its image is reproduced on the very page, the picture was taken by myself years ago!) Additionaly, it has two pages on the most important book about micro nations, "Ils ne siegent pas a l'ONU"by Mr. Fabrice O'driscoll Other newspapers include JORNAL O DIA (Brazil), ESTADO DE S. PAULO (Brazil), Visão (Portugal), etc. It IS notable. Furthermore, it was on the original article for many years until it was removed for no explanation. More: Also cited on the book "Micronations: For Those who are tired of existing incompetent governments" by Mohammad Bahareth - https://books.google.com.br/books?id=SxA-O0Byl1MC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=%22holy+empire+of+reunion%22&source=bl&ots=IGU5kM5HE3&sig=UeLbDmmktH2EMzUcf2Ghb2QkmHs&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ei=WpPVVMSxDsSigwTT_4HQCA&ved=0CGYQ6AEwDTgK#v=onepage&q=%22holy%20empire%20of%20reunion%22&f=false Also, on POPCULTIVITY: http://popcultivity.com/world/weird-and-amusing-micronations-around-the-world/ MORE, even, on the The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures: http://www.shimajournal.org/issues/v5n2/f.%20Taglioni%20Shima%20v5n2%2045-67.pdf On turkish magazine KURIE: http://kurier.ty-i.net/2014/11/11/czlowiek-wodka-patrzy-na-lepszy-swiat/ On Legal Thesis "Teoria Delle Micronazioni", in an Italian University: http://www.diritto.it/articoli/informatica/iolis.html Article on FOLHA DE SÃO PAULO: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/informat/fr05089802.htm The list is really big. Claudre — Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 12:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Micronation → Virtual state – Google Scholar: Virtual state - 2 160 000 results, and Micronation - 379 results. Google Books: Virtual state - 2 510 000 books, and Micronation - 1 750 books. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose, for three reasons: 1) you should use quotes and search for "virtual state" instead of virtual state, which drastically decreases the number of search results, 2) In contrast to micronation, "virtual state" has several meanings. In particular it seems to be used in computer science a lot. That by itself explains the higher number of results you get. I disagree with your claim that "virtual state" is more commonly used for micronations that "micronation" itself. 3) a virtual state is something different than a micronation. A virtual state might involve a claim over some substantial territory, without in fact having any significant control over it at all (yet). A micronation, in contrast, usually only claims a very small territory, and usually does have (some sort of) control over its entirety. --rtc (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    "A micronation, in contrast, usually only claims a very small territory, and usually does have (some sort of) control over its entirety." - Grand Duchy of Westarctica. Marie Byrd Land is very small territory? Grand Duchy of Westarctica have control above Marie Byrd Land? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    "you should use quotes and search for "virtual state" instead of virtual state, which drastically decreases the number of search results" - Google Scholar: "virtual state" 19,000 results, "micronation" 190 results. Google Books: "virtual state" 27 500, "micronation" 597 Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "virtual state" is not the same as micronation, per RTC, it is highly imprecise and has other more prominent meanings. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because literature is using "micronation", eg. Lonely Planet Micronations by John Ryan.--Yopie (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because micronations are most commonly known as just that, not as virtual states. Also, the above reasons. Uberstadt (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Micronation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Micronation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriousness of The Republic of Jamtland

In this article one can got the impression that the Republic of Jamtland is a serious attempt on forming a independent republic. Comparing the actual page on The republic of Jamtland were it's obvious that it's a joke. Even the official homepage of the Republic clearly state that it no more than a joke. This is clear by reading this citation from their page: "Befrielserörelsen har hämtat inspiration från andra, mer seriösa frihetsrörelser, dess syften är emellertid inte att göra de tre delrepublikerna till en egen stat, utan att verka för den lokala kulturen och bevarande av folkmålen jamska och herjeådalska och se till att de fortfarande brukas."[1] Roughly translated to: " The liberation movement has taken inspiration from other, more reputable liberation movements, its purpose is not to make the three republics to their own state, but to promote the local culture and preservation of regional dialects Jamska and herjeådalska and ensure that they are still used." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.136.65 (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://republikenjamtland.se/Om-foreningen.html

Categories

There's currently an OR tag on Nine main types of micronations are prevalent. Anyone have a cite for that, otherwise I'll remove it. Bromley86 (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Micronation. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

San Escobar?

Coming out as an spoken error of a Polish politician, San Escobar grew to a fictitious/fictional micronation via – parody – online presence. Should be mentioned here. --Helium4 (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Micronation. 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:

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) 17:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Moresnet

Hi, I added Neutral Moresnet here, but Yopie removed it and said it is not a micronation. What do you think? Dolberty (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't think so, Neutral Moresnet was a Neutral zone, not a micronation. Adog104 Talk to me 16:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Can it not be both? The German Wikipedia has Neutral Moresnet in their list of micronations, and they should know. The French, too. Dolberty (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Still don't think so, and I think they may have listed (or labeled them) incorrectly. There's a distinction between an entity of land that claims independence while no one government or international organization recognizes the claim too an entity of land that is recognized by governmental claim, is shared, and administered together by multiple entities recognized. Even if someone argued that when Germany annexed the land it could be a micronation, it wouldn't, since it would be a disputed territory at that point such as with Crimea. Adog104 Talk to me 13:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Skywalkistan

Skywalkistan, as seen here is a large micronation with a large population of 91 and with ties to other micronations, such as Molossia. The noteworthiness of Skywalkistan is about equal to that of Enclava, Ongal, or Pontinha, should it then be included in the list? Please let me know your opinions. (I would like to note that as seen here, Skywalkistan is more popular than acclaimed note-worthy nations like Sealand or North Sudan) TyEvSkyo (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I find no mention of it in any reliable source. Some measure of "popularity" found in another wiki is of no relevance here. Largoplazo (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

List of micronations as list article

Split suggested. This would streamline the article a bit. --LukeSurl t c 16:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

LukeSurl, I would agree with a proposal to combine the full list at List of micronations. I think that makes a lot of sense. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Micronation. 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:

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) 09:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Another micronation should be mentioned

There's a micronation called Republic of Parva Domus (es:Parva Domus) founded in 1878 that due to its long history would be worth to be mentioned in this article. --Zerabat (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Should micronation XYZ be included here?

I see people proposing a new micronation to be mentioned in this article on a regular basis. I'm not here to argue specifics for each such example, but to try to establish some general rules.

Is the micronation notable in its own right? If it meets the wikipedia criteria to have an article (see wp:note, and be aware of wp:spip), then it should have its own article. All such pages about individual micronations should then be included in a list category.

Within this page itself, since this should ideally be an article about the concept of micronations, what they are, how they come about, etc., and not a collection of micro-articles about individual micronations. That is to say, it should not be merely a list page with extended discussion about each item in the list. As such, any micronations that are discussed in any detail in this article should be discussed because that helps illustrate a point related to the general concept of micronations, or because it is an ur-example of a class of micronations, rather than to explain a point about that particular micronation.

Rhialto (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this article is not the place to list everyone's pet micronation. We have the list article List of micronations for that, inked in this article already. Meters (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Erroneous Link

Citation #26 is an article on Pizza Hut and has nothing to do with the subject. Epsilontau5 (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Micronations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Micronations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Micronations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 13:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion

Having been reverted by El C without explanation, I'm wondering why that is. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

My explanation is here. El_C 22:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

IP, I don't think this merits a hatnote at the top of the page. If the article is ended up being retained, maybe add it to the See also. But you cannot put it at the top of the article. It is not that significant to merit that, which makes that addition promotional.
— User:El_C 22:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The principal purpose of hatnotes is disambiguation. As it is put by shortcut: WP:HAT is not a redirect (help), "Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for."
The title of the book in question is Micronations, a term which, reasonably, redirects to this article, leaving us with an ambiguity. Readers searching for searching for the book's title without including its subtitle will wind up at this article and, as things currently stand, will not be given any indication that the article they are seeking even exists. This would seem to be a clear application of WP:HAT § Ambiguous term that redirects to an unambiguously named article.
Of what relevance is the notability of the book, El C? The recent proposal that the article be deleted on notability grounds was declined earlier today by Ninetyone, who argued that the subject meets WP:NBOOK. While I am at this point agnostic on the question of the book's notability (which is a moot point anyway unless the article goes to AfD), I fail to see how it would affect what we do with a disambiguatory hatnote. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, it doesn't seem to merit the attention of being at the top of the article. Having it as another See also item seems more appropriate. Readers may search for a whole host of things, but that does not mean that each related entry needs to be at the top of the article. I'm not really seeing an argument that addresses this context. El_C 23:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
How are you assessing "merit" here? And since when do we use see also sections for disambiguatory purposes? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
On the basis of the sources (or lack thereof). I'm not advocating a disambiguatory purpose. El_C 23:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, maybe we've been speaking past each other, in that case. The purpose of the hatnote was disambiguation. Why would the article's sourcing be a factor in the decision to include a disambiguatory aid? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, you're asking general questions that really depend on context. Anyway, I just don't think it needs disambiguatory aid in the first place. El_C 23:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, you're asking general questions that really depend on context. You had made the implicit assertion that the sourcing was relevant with respect to whether a disambiguatory hatnote would be included. I'm asking on what basis you are making that assertion. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
On the basis that we already have List of micronations. We do not need to promote this quasi(?)notable book with a hatnote at the top of the page, with all the attention that that entails. El_C 00:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Hatnotes are for directing readers to commonly confused or searched-for articles. They're not kitchen-sink repositories for everything that might be related, certainly not individual books on the boundaries of notability. I'm inclined to AfD the book article as a form of bookspam. Acroterion (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Notable micronationalists section

We already have the Category:Micronational leaders, is a section here on notable micronationalists entirely necessary? I feel like it may be too subjective (given the scarce amount of available sources), and the article (especially list of notable micronations) already mentions most of the micronationalists in the section anyway. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Conch republic: Notable micronation?

I've noticed lately, that Conch Republic got added to the list of Notable Micronations a couple times (by User:SoccerTrackFarm3264, and then removed again each time by User:Meters, who says it is "not a micronation", and that it is a "tongue-in-cheek publicity venture". The first line of the Conch Republic article states it is a micronation, and is also cited twice on this article, once directly calling it a micronation. The talk page over there seems to come to the conclusion that it's a micronation, though not a "serious soverignty-oriented" one, I think? To me, it seems relevant for inclusion on the list, given it's citation elsewhere on the page, but what do others think? --dr-spangle (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not know what the inclusion criteria of the list is, but it appears to only list micronations with "serious" claims. I note this because for example the Republic of Molossia (which is more of a tourist attraction and does not seek sovereignty) is not included, despite its large media coverage, and neither is the Aerican Empire (which is largely tongue-in-cheek) among others, whilst the micronations that are listed (i.e. Republic of Minerva, Freedonia, Rose Island etc.) were genuine sovereignty projects that led to government action (such as destructions of the micronations and arrests). But I may misinterpret that, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I had posted to the talk page of the person adding this supposed micronation asking him to discuss it here. If there is consensus to include it that's fine with me, but I think it should at least be discussed.
I'm not certain this is a legitimate micronation. We call it "tongue in cheek" and a "tourism booster", and even its geographical extent is nebulous. Much of the previous discussion on Talk:Conch Republic was from 2005–2007 and by SPAs and socks. Threads about its legitimacy continue to be raised on that talk page. user:Donald Albury recently made what I find to be a telling comment (albeit it while discussing the legitimacy of the supposed flag): The Conch Republic has no real existance. It originally was declared as a protest against the US government setting up a passport control point in the upper keys, but is now more like a meme, kept alive as a promotional stunt for tourists. Meters (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
How about, we follow policy and say that the "Conch Republic" is a micronation if independent secondary reliable sources say that it is. And I hold that "Conch Republic" web sites, travel guides, and blogs do not meet the criteria of independent, secondary, and reliable. I'll just note that the first source cited in Conch Republic, a Miami Herald (a newspaper generally accepted as reliable) article, refers to the Conch Republic as "zany", "fake", and "farcical". - Donald Albury 22:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Micronational Organisations section

I would like to make note of a few edits– and revertions as of late, with regards to the newly added micronational organisation section to the article.

Notability aside, the citations within the section are unreliable self-published sources (which I did mark as such). To the credit of User:IslandUnity, the references citing MicroWiki (Which falls under WP:UGC) were removed, but several unreliable sources remain.

The Self-published template I added however was removed– for what I believe to be an incorrect reason. Given that there have been 2 reverts from both parties as of recent, I have opted to bring this forth to the talk page in order to discuss.

Cited Links:

Ciao. Pax Brittanica (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Citing Microwiki isn't WP:UGC as the content/wiki was not made by said user but rather a group of people under the private owner, Jonathan Austen; similar to Wikipedia proper. On to the the sources like the GUM or the Grand Unified Micronational, it is very reliable and is the oldest organization in micronationalism respectively. It appears there is a ton of misinformation and lack of research on your part into the subject at hand.--Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment: WP:UGC quite clearly specifies "most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites". MicroWiki quite clearly falls under this grouping. Pax Brittanica (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment: NCWP isn't collaborative, nor user generated. Neither is the LIN's website, neither is the GUM's website. I've already explained this to you. IslandUnity (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I was referring to the MicroWiki citation, in regards to WP:UGC. The NCWP/LIN/GUM citations themselves are problematic as they are WP:SPS. I cannot find any independent verifiable sources pertaining to these subjects, so either an alternative citation should be found, or this should be removed altogether. Pax Brittanica (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Pax Brittanica is correct, as self-published sources are not reliable (such as the GUM and LIN website) and neither are user-generated sites (like wikis). Please do not revert the edit again or add the citations back as they are not reliable. I would advise finding third-party citations (as Brittanica mentioned) that are not closely associated with micronationalism to avoid topic bias. ––Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree, Microwiki is not an independent verifiable source. The only 3 micronational organisations mentioned in Russian, French and Italian newspapers and books are the AMU, the OMF and MicroCon. --Delle89 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The GUM is not under Wikipedia:SELFPUB as it is very reliable, and is one of the oldest micronational organizations there is. AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The site at grandunifiedmicronational-dot-org tries to install crapware when I access it, so... it's worse than not-reliable, it's a candidate for the Wikipedia blacklist. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
That is not the correct site, check https://grandunifiedmicronational.wordpress.com/. Also "crapware" really? AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
That site is not an independent source, nor a reliable source, as it is edited by representatives of micronations. - Donald Albury 15:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Errant Republic of Menda Lerenda

Is a guardian article enough for inclusion? Here is one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/18/spanish-driver-hash-cakes-claims-diplomatic-immunity-menda-lerenda - fyi: "menda lerenda" means something similar to "yours truly" in Spanish, see wiktionary.--91.64.240.136 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on the the self-description on the organization's website (https://www.republicamendalerenda.net/copia-de-historia), it seems to be a collective Sovereign citizen movement rather than a micro-nation. Donald Albury 14:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
The article says, "A micronation expresses a formal and persistent if unrecognized claim of sovereignty over some physical territory," which this does not. While many micronations' purported citizens don't live there, they at least have a "there". -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Micronation/Archive_4&oldid=1140627468"