Jump to content

Talk:Micronation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

You've been reverting back and forth

What is the problem with this article? You've been reverting back and forth, but both versions seem legit. Metasquares 22:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gene Poole, who is the "emperor" of "Atlantium", wants to insert his nonsense state into a list of genuine "aspirant states" with Palestine. --Wik 22:32, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Wik is systematically deleting all references to one of the entities referenced in the article as a result of what appears to be some sort of attempted personal vendetta. The assertions that Wik continues to make concerning Atlantium are unsubstantiated personal opinions that are rendered invalid by verifiable evidence that exists in the public domain, but which he/she continues to refuse to acknowledge. Gene Poole
According to The FAQ on Atlantium.org, Atlantium is not a Micronation. Therefore, why should it be on the list? Metasquares 22:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Because it is frequently referred to using that formulation by external commentators seeking a familiar reference point. Gene Poole
They seem to want to distinguish themselves from other micronations, and if they themselves proclaim that they are not a micronation, I don't see how we can argue based on other people's perspectives. I've posted this on requests for comments in the hope that we can get more opinions on this. Metasquares 23:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
While they claim on their FAQ site to not be a "micronation", the website goes on to use a definition that is different from the definition laid out at the top of the article. The FAQ site claims that micronations "exist only on the Internet", a constraint that is not supported by the Wikipedia article. If the article's definition is correct (and it was not a point of dispute in the recent edit war), Atlantium may be a micronation whether they want to be considered such or not.
Based on the data in their website and the descriptions in the article, I would consider Atlantium to be an example of a "type 1" micronation, not "type 6". According to their FAQ, they have not attempted to secede or dispute the territory they occupy (a common characteristic of type 6's). Also from the FAQ, "Atlantium has not sought to establish bilateral relations with any other state, and does not intend to do so ..." (the other common characteristic of type 6's).
However, since we have other, non-controversial examples for each type, I see little harm in leaving them out of the article. Rossami 22:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What the hell?! Where did this article disappear to? I edited one line and the entire thing vanished with the exception of the links! Gene_Poole

Deletion Log

  • Deleted old talk. Archived here: [1]. Martin 10:33 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
    • tallossa.com is down
    • debate on the distinction between fifth nation and micronation, if any
      • Vera Cruz thinks that fifth nation is a subset of micronation
      • Tallini thinks that the differences are so big that the concepts are distinct
    • need to merge micronation with micronationalism -- done by The Anome.
    • Need to have seperate categories, possibly articles. Need to distinguish between historical anomalies, aspirant microstates, and hobbyist stuff (general agreement here)
    • alleging fraud: it's ok, because we have sound sources
    • removing "verifiable existence" - what does that actually mean?
    • amusing dispute between redondan claimants
    • "various other concepts" deleted.
    • slight tweak to "what is a micronation" discussed
    • Are micronations just silly?

I've a suggestion. Currently we have an entry that categorises micronations, which is inevitably going to cause conflict over where each nation should go: is Pacifica a vehicle for the entertainment of its 57 members, or is it promoting the portugese culture, or is it genuinely an aspirant microstate? There's also the question of whether a micronation should be included at all.

I believe that the way to solve this is to change that section to talk about the different motivations behind micronationalism. Then there could be one section on each motivation, and each motivation could give a single illustrative example. Other examples, less useful for the purposes of illustration, can be relegated to list of micronations.

Btw, "Wikipedia on 5th escatology list" - does anyone know what that means? It rings a bell, but only from the Principia Discordia... Or what HMCT stands for, for that matter? Martin

Hello. Isn't there a convention to archive old talk? As is done at... erm, I'm sure I've seen it doen in a few places, but I can't think where... Oh, here's one: Talk:Mathematics (archive). Or is this not considered necessary in general? -- Oliver PEREIRA 13:00 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Editing policy for where I'm coming from. Apologies if I've broken taboos. I've added a link to the version before my deletion. Martin
Ah, I see! It looks like you've done the right thing. Sorry, I'm still a bit hazy about all these conventions. But I think it's nice that one can go back into the history and see what people were saying, so thanks for putting in the extra link. -- Oliver PEREIRA 13:55 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Should SMOM and Palestine be listed here at all? The former is widely-recognised as a "real" sovereign state by a long list of "real" countries (including the US), and the latter is a de-facto state in all but name.

There is a grey area between "nations" and "micronations", as there isn't a single operative definition. Both SMOM and Palestine fall somewhere in this grey area. If you remove them, you may as well remove Sealand. At least Sealand has a territory that it exercises sovereignity over. Neither SMOM nor Palestine meet this criteria. At heart, the big problem here is probably trying to cram too many things into the definition of "micronations". The examples given vary from serious efforts to parodies. If you draw the line at "recognized by other major sovereigns", then even the Confederacy would have been considered a microstate.
In any case "A small number of micronations are founded with genuine aspirations to be sovereign states" in the description of that category is essentially incorrect. Nova Roma, for example, claims to be serious about their declaration of sovereignty. I'm also wary about saying that Sealand is a sovereign Principality, or that SMOM is a sovereign state, when these points are disputed. Martin

SMOM is not a state or micronation. It is a Sovereign Order. Predating the modern nation state, sovereign status freed the order and its property from local feudal lords, and the trappings of government are similar to those of the other Catholic Religious orders, but with the ability to act independently of the local lords. Previously territory was necessary to secure this independence – and protect its property. In the modern political climate this is no longer thought necessary – hence the offer of territory from Malta was declined. Can its diplomatic immunity to further humanitarian activities be equated to, for example, UNHCR or ICRC? garryq 15:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


When constructed, in 1942, Sealand was in international waters, because the UK only claimed three nautical miles off its coast. On 1 October, 1987, Britain extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 nautical miles. Sealand is six nautical miles from the UK coast. Therefore it is in formerly international waters.

A side note: we need articles on territorial waters and international waters The Anome

In a paragraph which starts "Micronational activities were disproportionately common throughout Australia in the final three decades of the 20th century", it would seem perfectly sensible to include a number of examples, particularly ones that were well documented in the Australian press, which Gene Poole states in an edit summary is the case for the following examples:

a mortgage foreclosure dispute led George and Stephanie Muirhead of Rockhampton, Queensland to secede as the Principality of Marlborough in 1993. Yet another Australian secessionist state came into existence on 1 May 2003, when Peter Gillies declared the independence of his 66 hectare northern New South Wales farm as the Principality of United Oceania after an unresolved year-long dispute with Port Stephens Council over Gillies' plans to construct a private residence on the property.

These examples are verifiable through Google, and highly relevant to a paragraph which is trying to document how widespread this phenomenon was. There seems no reason to delete them. Angela 17:53, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The only Google hit for "Principality of United Oceania" is this Wikipedia article. There are only 3 hits for "Principality of Marlborough". That's what I call irrelevant, especially for such recent events. It seems clear that those "secessions" were of no consequence. --Wik 18:02, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
And what about the fact they were highly documented in the press? You can't find everything through Google, and I would expect this is even more true of issues relating to non-American topics, like that in this paragraph. However, I am willing to compromise and keep only the Principality of Marlborough one. The fact it has "only three Google hits" is irrelevant; the information is verifiable and real. Without further sources quoted for the information about the Principality of United Oceania, I am happy to leave that out for now. Angela 18:53, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That "fact" is just Gene Poole's claim at the moment. The fact is that the Australian press is online like any other, so if it had been widely reported Google would find it on some Australian media site. Incidentally, I found this comment on VfD:
Delete both. Marcus McCallion is non-famous. Reflexive typography is idiosyncratic (1 Google hit). Angela 15:03, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
So 1 Google hit is not good enough, but 3 are? Marcus McCallion appears to be more famous than those "principalities". But well, surely Angela has some good reasons here. I don't want to suggest that she is just opposing me on principle. That impression shouldn't come across. --Wik 19:31, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)
I might oppose an article on something with one Google hit if there was no good reason not to, but that is not the same as opposing a sentence in an article about something that has three Google hits, and a claim from someone that it was in the press. Angela
There are important scholarly books, authoritative source material that I've been using for articles, that are barely visible to Google because there aren't any people-with-no-lives making web pages about them. Google is a useful research tool, but it's not an actual authority; in fact, I think I recall Wik arguing that "Adolph Hitler" wasn't worth mentioning in WP despite its 77,000 Google hits. So Wik is not being very consistent in dismissing Google results one moment and holding it up as the very definition of significance the next. Stan 18:57, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I am perfectly consistent. Your logic is flawed. When I say something is irrelevant when it is not on Google, it doesn't follow that something is automatically relevant when it is on Google. Of course the web contains a lot of trash, including misspellings. But at the same time any subject worth mentioning in an encyclopaedia (with some exceptions, but they don't apply here) will have more than 3 Google hits. --Wik 19:31, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Wik - I'm glad you admit the possibility of exceptions. I'd be interested to see what exceptions you think there are, and why they don't apply here? Or, put another way, what would it take to convince you that the Principality of United Oceania was "worthy" of inclusion?

Incidentally, it appears that the Principality of United Oceania was indeed mentioned in the press: at least, the Australian Daily Telegraph, July 24th, 2003 page 20 (try a google groups search). Sadly, the archives aren't available online for free. As a result, they aren't indexed by google. Martin 22:40, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Removed Palestine. Whatever its true status should or will eventually be, it (along with, say, the "Tamil Homeland", or Bougainville) is a qualitatively different beast from entities like the bloody Hutt River Province, and associating them is horribly misleading. --Robert Merkel 23:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi folks, is there any chance of discussing this page and coming to some compromise so that the page can be unlocked? Thanks. Pakaran. 04:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The only credible response is a restoration of the article as it existed prior to the unilateral deletion carried out by Wik. That action was demonstrably based solely on the aforsesaid user's prejudicial attitude towards the subject of the deletetion. Whilst Wik may disagree with the validity and/or legitimacy ascribed to that subject, he/she has provided no evidence to support his/her assertion that the subject is "irrelevant" or "fictitious". This is particularly significant in light of the fact that plentiful evidence to the contary exists in the public domain - both online and off. Gene Poole

Kindly fix link to Sovereign Military Order of Malta into Knights Hospitaller as those pages was merged Przepla 23:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. Angela. 03:23, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Wik has commenced selectively vandalising this article again. It needs to be reverted to the previous unvandalised reversion. Gene Poole

Page protected

This page has been protected due to an edit war. -- Viajero 21:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Palestine is a nation and not a "micronation". There are over 3 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and nearly 9 million worldwide. They share history, language, culture. The fact that they have not achieved the typical institutions of a state is irrelevant: they are a nation, not a micronation. I believe that the only reason they have been included as a 'micronation' is political, and to cause offence. Please do not abuse Wikipedia for wiping out people.pir 07:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Palestine was more than likely written-in because it is undeniably an aspirant state. Whether it actually belongs in this article however is less certain. In any case, I seriously doubt that encyclopaedic genocide was the deliberate intention of whoever included it. Gene Poole

OK, I take the charge of encyclopaedic genocide back - I have read similar extremist views in other Wikipedia articles, but I can't substantiate it here. You are probably right that it was included as an aspirant state. However this is all the more reason to remove it from here: we need to distinguish between nation (a group of people that share e.g. history, culture etc.) and sovereign state (a country with defined territory and institutions like government). Palestinians might aspire to statehood but they are a nation. pir 19:03, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Much of the source of the disputes above seem to be around the categorization of various examples into specific types of micronations. May I suggest that we do not need to create or include an exhaustive list. In fact, listing the history of every micronation probably does more harm than good if the article rambles along rather than being clear and concise.

This is an encyclopedia article about micronations generally. Categories and a few clear examples within each category advance that goal. Controversial or unclear examples should either be omitted or deliberately put into an "other" category. The rest of the sufficiently famous micronations may deserve their own article without needing to be discussed in this one. Rossami 18:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. The constant bickering over what constitutes an example of a micronation is interfering with progress on the definition of a micronation. Metasquares 03:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article needs to be reverted to the most recent version by by myself. Subsequent troll vandalisation has resulted in the inclusion of invalid data, and deletion of valid data. Gene Poole

This is exactly the place to discuss the article with your adversaries. Talk and compromise, or revert and get the page protected. Simple as that. Kosebamse 10:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The word "Micronation" should refer to countries like San Marino, Monaco, Andorra, Brunei, Vatican City and Nauru. Micro means very small and those countries fit in those categories. Palestine is a more delicate issue. It could be argued that the West Bank is in fact Palestine under a different name. Palestine is in the same situation as Northern Cyprus and Biafra (1967-70). It has recognition from other countries but not from a high percentage of World countries. It should be put in the same category as South Ossetia, Somaliland, Abkhazia, N. Cyprus and other unrecognized entities. Putting Palestine in a semi-recognition category which would also include Northern Cyprus would have merits. Vital component Sat. March 6th 4:42pm

But that is not the meaning of the word: one cannot change its meaning to suit one's own preference. -- Kwekubo 22:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To many words are stolen today. Technicly speaking the "third would countries" should be the "fifth world countries" because are still powerful communist socialist marxist nations not yet defunct. However people still call poor nations "third world" eventhough thats not what the word means. Stuff like thats happens to much nowadays. Vital component 4:31 pm

When this page is unprotected, I recommend moving most of the External Links to the new article list of micronations. Rossami 22:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The list of External Links directly reference entities discussed in the article and should certainly not be moved. The separate article list of micronations lists all micronations that have dedicated Wikipedia articles. Gene Poole

---

Please, I beg, let Nova Roma be changed to Nova Roma or something like this. It has nothing at all to do with "New Rome", which is what Nova Roma Redirects to. Dogface 19:26, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What about the two micronations declared in London: Frestonia [2] declared in 1977 to try to stop the Greater London Council from evicting squatters, and Wanstonia [3] declared in 1993 to try to stop a road scheme? Dbiv 22:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Article links to Nova Roma, but there is no article there; it redirects to New Rome, which is irrelevant.

Article also links to Republic of Talossa, which redirects back to this article.

Probably due to people going on vendettas to remove references to micronations from Wikipedia. Is there an actual policy on micronations for Wikipedia, or is it just most-persistent rules out here? Jdavidb 21:07, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

There's not so much a formal policy as a common sense rule-of-thumb; if a micronation exists in the real world, then it is notable, and worth an article. If it exists as a couple of internet pages, or is a fantasy creation, then it isn't - although if it is a notable fantasy example it might be noted in the micronation article.

By "exists" I mean that actual third party documentary evidence can be cited as proof of activities conducted by the micronation in the physical world involving real people, products or services.

Nova Roma is a Roman-themed re-enactment group that is most certainly worthy of an article. Talossa is an online fantasy that isn't (but it is already noted in the micronation article).--Gene_poole 02:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism 2

I would like to report that this page is being vandalised by Gene_poole, the author of many micronational articles such as the Empire of Atlantium, Hutt River Province, Rose Island, and Sealand, and who seems to have complained about vandalism himself in the past. It is interesting to note that Gene Poole can also be reached at the Atlantium email address.

The Fifth World is an offshoot of the micronational phenomena, and thus can be legitimately placed and mentioned in an article about micronationalism. Any reason for keeping the Fifth World movement out can only be arbitrary and POV. Let me also point out that the well-written Italian version of the article also mentions 8 categories of micronations, and it also mentions Fifth World nations.

None of the micronations that Gene Poole mentions owns an alternate root top-level domain, none of these micronations owns IPv4 networks, and none of these micronations has any real bank credit, unlike some Fifth World nations, and even the Fifth World Council itself.

I would like to suggest to Gene Poole that he stick to editing articles about the nations he does know something about, and leave the nations from which he has received donations alone, if he doesn't want trouble in the future.

--

The above contributor is encouraged to cease interpolating irrelevant "Fifth World" content into this and other articles (including foreign language articles). These fantasies are not an "offshoot" of anything - apart from the author's overly fertile imagination. Nor are they acknowledged as having any form of relevance or currency by anyone aside from this same single paranoid author.--Gene_poole 02:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Question

According to the article, for the most part, micronations exist only on paper, on the Internet, or in the minds of their creators and participants, but a small number have also managed to achieve some degree of recognition. When they do, they converge to some degree with other organizing paradigms that offer, or seem to offer, political or infrastructural independence of some sort.

Now all this suggests that there are micronations that exist not only on paper, on the internet, or in the minds of their creators (ownership of land/buildings notwithstanding). Is this in fact true? Exploding Boy 05:39, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

There are plentiful examples cited in the article.--Gene_poole 10:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well that was helpful. Actually, the article doesn't seem to give any examples of micronations that have achieved any degree of recognition, converging with other organizing paradigms that offer political or infrastructural independence of any sort. Exploding Boy 11:28, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same article? Did you read the bits about the Clunies-Ross family on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the White Rajas of Borneo, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, The Principality of Seborga etc ? --Gene_poole 11:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

None of those exists in the present, which is what the opening paragraph suggests. Exploding Boy 11:43, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
Huh? (1) 50% of the listed entities exist in the present day (ie now, ie July 2004), (2) Use of the past tense in the opening paragraph (as in "have achieved") specifies nothing other than the "achievement" has occurred at a past juncture. Could I suggest you do a little more research - on both English grammar and micronations - before attempting to continue this discussion.--12:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which micronations have achieved recognition, political or infrastructural independence? Exploding Boy 12:21, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

As in most things there are degrees of "recognition". From a practical standpoint, the Brookes' in Borneo and the Clunies-Ross' on Cocos Island had complete physical control over the territories and people they ruled. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta has had no territory aside from some buildings in Rome for some 200 years, however they have full diplomatic relations with half the nations in the world and observer status at the UN. Seborga's independent currency is a valid means of exchange in shops and banks within its borders. The Hutt River Province people apparently have paid no taxes to the Australian government, nor received any Aust Govt services since the 1970s. Closer to home, Atlantium has, amongst other things, had fully accredited representatives (a) make recognised representation to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' Working Group on Indigenous Peoples in Geneva, (b) be invited to the most recent Brazilian Presidential inauguration and (c) have formal discussions with former President Mejia of the Dominican Republic.--Gene_poole 12:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. But The SMOM isn't a micronation is it? Same for Seborga, if the article on the place is correct. The article on Hutt River Province says that no government recognises the Province's claims to independence (and tax evasion doesn't equal independence). I'm also interested in your claims about Atlantium. The article says "No established nation has recognised Atlantium's sovereignty and it has no reciprocal diplomatic relations..." and also makes no mention of the items you list above. So can you provide the info? Exploding Boy 13:01, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
There is no agreement on what SMOM is. It is an historic anomaly that doesn't fit any of the standard categories. Seborga has de facto existence but has no reciprocal diplomatic relations with any other country. Likewise with Hutt River - however lack of "recognition" by other states does not mean that the "unrecognised" entity does not have a de facto existence. Atlantium is also "formally unrecognised", but has ongoing interactions with numerous governments and NGOs at various levels. Indeed, I am due to visit Brazil early in 2005 during which I will be holding discussions with several state governors and numerous members of the local diplomatic community. There were attempts to include some of the data mentioned above in the Atlantium article, but several other contributors seemed to take personal offense at the idea of their inclusion, and expunged them.--Gene_poole 13:14, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, ok, but all of those examples are revealed as rather weak when subjected to scrutiny. In terms of having achieved recognition, political or infrastructural independence, none of them seems to apply. Exploding Boy 13:19, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary. All the cited examples show varying degrees of "recognition"; Seborga has both political and infrastructural (de facto) indepence and Hutt River has at very least a strong degree of infrastructural independence - and I'm not talking about tax avoidance; late last year I was shown, by a journalist for a leading Australian broadsheet newspaper, a copy of a letter from the Australian Taxation Office that states that Hutt River was to be considered an independent entity by that Office, and therefore not subjected to Australian taxation.--Gene_poole 13:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Forget about Sebroga for the time being, since we're not sure what it is (but whatever it is, it's probably not a micronation), but as for Hutt River, the article claims that "The Australian Government's current position on the Province is that it is nothing more than a private enterprise operating under a business name." Exploding Boy 13:37, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
On what grounds are you claiming that Seborga is not a micronation? The Hutt River article certainly repeats the claim that the Australian government doesn't "recognise" Hutt River - but I have sighted documentary evidence to the contrary - so the government's position has either changed since the documentary evidence was created, or else it is internally inconsistent. Either way the current statement in the article is incorrect. Maybe you should change it.--Gene_poole 23:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


On what grounds are you claiming that Seborga is not a micronation? It doesn't fit the definition. You yourself say above that it's a historic anomaly that doesn't fit the standard categories. But it's certainly not a hobby group, which is what most micronations can be called. Maybe you should change it. Maybe you should change it. And then you can wait five minutes and change it again when it gets reverted. Unless you can offer some actual evidence (other than "I saw a copy of a letter from the Australian Taxation Office," that is). Exploding Boy 03:31, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I don't intend to argue with you any further on this or any related subjects. It is not possible to engage in rational discourse with those who don't even appear to have the limited intelligence necessary to read and understand simple English sentence structure.--Gene_poole 04:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Come on Gene, Genie, Genie baby. Sure you can do better than that? You know, you don't have to resort to insults. If you don't have an answer, just say so. I won't hold it against you. Exploding Boy 05:36, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Nova Roma interpolations

Belgsoc appears to be a disgruntled former member of the above group who is attempting to interpolate irrelevant content and external links about an undocumented (probably fictitious) alternative Roman re-enactment group into the article, in preference to that of Nova Roma.--Gene_poole 06:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gene, we went over this on the votes for deletion page for Nova Roma; You keep reverting edits that mark Nova Roma as an "Exercise in fantasy or creative fiction" instead of a "Social, economic or political simulation". Why is this? Samboy 20:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. Yes, we did go over it. Weren't you paying attention? 2. Because it is. See 1. --Gene_poole 22:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gene, you are breaking the three-revert rule. Are we going to have to report you on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration page? There are at least two people, in addition to myself, who are members of Nova Roma who do not feel that Nova Roma is a micronation. So why do you keep insisting it is one, in spite of the general consensus here going against your ideas? Samboy 05:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You do not seem to grasp the simple fact that what you feel is totally and completely irrelevant to this - any any other - discussion. If you are not prepared to deal with cold hard facts then you should not be editing articles on Wikipedia. Nova Roma is included in the Micronation article because that is exactly how the group describes itself, at great length, on their own website! As an alleged member of the group you seem disturbingly unfamiliar with this fundamental fact of Nova Roma's reality. In any case, I would be delighted to hear your explanation of how a group that describes itself as a micronation is somehow not a micronation.--Gene_poole 05:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(Note: "Gene Poole" is a psudonym; his real name is George Cruickshank and he calls himself the "Emperor" of Atlantium) To clarify: I'm not a member of Nova Roma, and have never been involved in this group, except to vote for their article to be deleted. Samboy 20:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Note to admins: I am noting the above comment as further evidence of Samboy's tendency to lie, and then to change his story, as part of what appears to be a nascent campaign of personal vilification against another editor. As shown above Samboy, appearing to have an axe to grind, is interested only in petty point scoring, and does not respond to any of the preceding valid points of discussion.--Gene_poole 20:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"In any case, I would be delighted to hear your explanation of how a group that describes itself as a micronation is somehow not a micronation" {Gene Pool} Well, I would be delighted to hear how a lunatic who "describes himself" as Jesus Christ is somehow "NOT" Jesus Christ. With Nova Roma, we can see easily what it IS. Nova Roma is a not-for-profit corporation in MAINE, under MAINE LAW. It owns a small plot of land in Texas, under Texas Law, and given the events of 1861-1865, it is extremely unlikely that the US will allow this little spot of earth to secede and become a nation. Nova Roma is also a collection of free YAHOO MAILING LISTS. Their website is hosted free of charge by a member who has web hosting as an AMERICAN BUSINESS. The "citizens" of Nova Roma are mostly Americans, with plenty of Europeans, South Americans, and maybe a few in Asia. They all live in their real world nations, work in their real world nations, pay taxes in their real world nations, and live at least 90 percent of their lives in their real world nations. Nova Roma has how much industry? None. Nova Roma has how much agriculture? None. How many "citizens" look to NR for protection of life and property? None. A Maine company and a bunch of mailing lists....and would you have any of us believe that Nova Roma is a nation in any legitmate sense of that word? Hell no. Stuart Smith

errr... nice dissertation... but you seem to be confusing the term microstate, which Nova Roma is most certainly not, with the term Micronation, which Nova Roma most certainly is.--[[User:Gene 

Poole|Gene_poole]] 01:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok Gene, let me extend to you the same invitation made to Kaelus. If you really believe in this micronation stuff, then you are welcome to come to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BackAlley/. Instead of swallowing the crap from the NR website, how about getting some perspective from some guys who have been involved in NR since day one, and who now totally disavow this micronation biz? Tell Sulla {Ex consul and currect censor} that NR is really more than a club of eccentric weirdos and gamers. It would be an interesting exchange. The Back Alley is unmoderated and anything can be said there. Come on in!

To Samboy: I forgot to include this earlier. My problem with Belgsoc is his or her singling out NR for deletion/ The article would be better by eliminating all such clubs, and not just NR. Stuart Smith

Thanks for the invitation Stuart, but I'm going to decline, mostly because I'm simply not interested in the internal political machinations of micronation/re-enactment/political simulation groups. When Nova Roma consistently, publicly decides to promote itself using some formulation other than "micronation" I will reconsider my opinion, but as long as whoever it is who is in charge continues calling it a micronation, that is how I will refer to it.--Gene_poole 02:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As an aside, "Gene Poole" is really George Cruickshank, "Emperor" of Atlantium. Samboy 17:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kingdom of Bucksfan

The crank editor Samboy has started a revert war over the entry for the above. He is attempting to interpolate the entry for Bucksfan into the Entities Created for an Agenda section when it in fact belongs in the Internet Fantasy section. There is no evidence at all to suggest that the "Kingdom of Bucksfan" consists of more than 1 person with a few web pages. He is also deleting references to claims made by the "King of Bucksfan" otherwhise known as IndigoGenius that he is a "god" and a "genius". The latter claim, along with that editor's well-known contempt for Wikipedia community standards can be found on his own user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IndigoGenius --Gene_poole 02:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You may not think that the Son of God is not here on Earth, Gene Poole, but one day his angels will smash down your door in the middle of the night. Large angels... And you won't be able to call the police, because even the police will run away from them, the real Aryans... You will see what the "children" of the Son of God look like. --IndigoGenius 02:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I do appreciate your positive contributions to this page, "Gene". You are actually an excellent editor when you are not trying to defend your own micronation, or trying to attack other micronations, or trying to defend micronations you consider more significant than your own micronation. But, you do get abusive and go off the handle when getting in to micronation debates. Samboy 03:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As an update, I do not think it is appropriate to remove the link to Kingdom of Bucksfan; I have restored the link. I think we need some more consensus before just removing the link. Samboy 03:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Empire of Atlantium: Exercise in fantasy or agenda promoter

In this edit, Gzornenplatz moved Empire of Atlantium from "Vehicles for the promotion of an agenda" to "Exercises in fantasy or creative fiction". Geroge Cruickshank, "Emperor of Atlantium", a.k.a Gene Poole, naturally, moved it back.

I'm looking for consensus here. Like Gzornenplatz, I feel that Empire of Atlantium is best described as an "Exercise in fantasy or creative fiction" and have made the appropriate change. Samboy 03:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought this applied perfectly: "The use of grand-sounding titles, awards, honours and heraldic symbols derived from European feudal traditions and the conduct of "wars" with other micronations are common manifestations of their activites." Well, "Empire of Atlantium", "Imperium Proper", "Magister Aequitas", "Solidi", noble titles, flags, regalia - it's all there. Even a "war" with another micronation is mentioned on the website. Gzornenplatz 03:41, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)


Why not list it under entertainment/personal aggrandizement? Stuart Smith 05:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Stuart: You have to realize the psychology of "Gene Poole" here. Keep in mind that "Gene Poole" is a psudonym; his real name is George Curickshank and he is the founder and "Emperor" of the micronation Atlantium. As a result, it is very important to him to try and make his own little "empire" seem important and differentiate it from other micronations. His behavior is this: He is very hostile to people who do not consider his micronation important; he is also hostile to competing micronations, and is hostile to making micronations more significant than his own "Empire of Atlantium" seem unimportant (as can be seen in his hostility in the VfD for Nova Roma (Micronation)). For others reading this thread, George Cruickshank, who uses the psudonym "Gene Poole" here, tried again to mark his "Empire" as one of the "Vehicles for the promotion of an agenda" instead of one of the "Fantasy" micronations. I restored the old version, he reverted my edit, and Stuart Smith restored the listing of Empire of Atlantium to the version myself and Gzornenplatz agree on. Samboy 05:48, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As an additional comment, George attempted to skirt the three-revert rule by this edit, which completely removes his micronation from any list of micronation (since he doesn't want his micronation to be listed as a "Exercise in fantasy or creative fiction"), and, instead, has self-promotion for his micronation at other places in the article. He was still warned to not revert more than three times by RickK Samboy 07:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Remove all references to Empire of Atlantium

I feel that we should remove all references to Empire of Atlantium here; George Cruickshank, "Emperor of Atlantium" (a.k.a. "Gene Poole") is violating the no-self-promotion rule by trying to promote his own micronation here. If Atlantium is notable enough to put on this page, someone besides its own emperor should do so. Samboy 08:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good luck trying to justify that one Sambo. You're going to need it. You ought to spend more time preparing your defense and less time working yourself into a lather about things you know obviously nothing about. --Gene_poole 08:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have ignored my request for mediation. Why is this? Samboy 08:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I will initiate mediation when I have sufficient evidence to ensure you are taught that you cannot indefinitely get away with treating others with contempt. Given the current rate that you are digging yourself into a hole, I anticipate that being about 2 days from now. --Gene_poole 08:48, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
George, you have treated a lot of people with contempt yourself. For example, you have treated John with contempt by stating "If you want to conduct a debate that's supported solely by your POV rather than actual evidence, then frustration will be an inevitable outcome. You can hardly blame me for that."; you have treated Exploding boy with contempt by stating "It is not possible to engage in rational discourse with those who don't even appear to have the limited intelligence necessary to read and understand simple English sentence structure". You have treated Cesidio Tallini with contempt by trying to put the following abusive paragraph in this Micronation article: "The Kingdom of Bucksfan, an internet-based fantasy created by one Cesidio Tallini, who amongst other things, believes himself to be a god and a genius, although these asertions are unsupported by available evidence. Tallini refers to Bucksfan as being part of the Fifth World - a New Age concept of limited currency, derived from Hopi mythology.". You have been very abusive to a lot of people, George, and are being very abusive to me. But, I won't back down. I will not let you intimidate me, the way you have intimidated a lot of editors. Samboy 09:01, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Save it for mediation.--Gene_poole 09:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And do not refer to me by my first name. That priviledge is reserved for my friends.--Gene_poole 09:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Mr. Cruickshank, I will not call you by your first name, but please do not call me "Sambo" either. Samboy 09:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Samboy, I agree that Atlantium should be deleted entirely from this article, as the Atlantium FAQ says clearly:
"Are you a "micronation"?
No. "Micronations" are state-like entities that exist only on the internet. Unlike Atlantium they do not have a verifiable existence in the real world or any sustainable claim to legitimacy."
Since Atlantium claims it is not a micronation, it obviously has no place in a Micronation article. Stuart Smith 02:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But then again, according to the definition given, Sealand and the Hutt River Province would also not be micronations. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 03:25, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I could go either way. There is a claim of sovereignty, but it's unclear what exactly that sovereignty is supposed to entail, as the vast majority of residents live outside the claimed territory (and all of them apparently work outside it). It's really just a political advocacy group. That said, if there is verifiable evidence that this is called a micronation, we should probably include a mention here.

Either way I'd urge Mr. Cruickshank not to engage in an edit war on the article page. This is a long term issue which will not be won by edit warring. Instead, he should present his arguments here, and we should make legitimate points against them, or listen to him. Ultimately I don't see the harm in mentioning Atlantium here, at least not if it is referred to by some as a micronation. anthony (see warning) 13:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Insertion of legitimate data concerning Kingdom of Bucksfan

Samboy has repeatedly objected to the inclusion of legitimate data concerning the Kingdom of Bucksfan - an entity created by IndigoGenius - with whom he has colluded on recent vandalisation and failed VfD attempts - into this article. I believe that the following paragraph, which I wrote, and which Samboy has sought to delete is an accurate, verifiable and truthful representation of facts concerning this entity, and I will therefore provide a line-by-line analysis of the reasons why this is so. Unless Samboy or any other editor elects to provide a line-by-line refutation based on contrary empirical evidence I intend to re-insert this paragraph into the article in due course:

The Kingdom of Bucksfan, an internet-based fantasy created by one Cesidio Tallini, who amongst other things, believes himself to be a god and a genius, although these asertions are unsupported by available evidence. Tallini refers to Bucksfan as being part of the Fifth World - a New Age concept of limited currency, derived from Hopi mythology.

  • The Kingdom of Bucksfan, an internet-based fantasy
  • TRUE. The Kingdom of Bucksfan does not exist in any tangible form. It has not produced a single empirically verifiable tangible artefact, or any evidence that it exists outside a group of internet pages owned and maintained by one person.
  • created by one Cesidio Tallini,
  • TRUE. Tallini claims to be the sole founder of the Kingdom of Bucksfan on numerous self-published websites.
  • who amongst other things, believes himself to be a god and a genius,
  • TRUE. Tallini has repeatedly stated as much on numerous self-published websites, on his Wikipedia user page, and on various online forums. He has also claimed to be the dean of a university, a brilliant original thinker, the harbinger of a “new age” and various other ridiculous self-referential formulations on various self-published websites and in various online forums.
  • although these asertions are unsupported by available evidence.
  • TRUE. No empirical evidence exists to suggest that Cesidio Tallini is a god, a genius, a university dean, a harbinger of change – or indeed anything other than a technology-savvy male resident of New York State.
  • Tallini refers to Bucksfan as being part of the Fifth World
  • TRUE. Tallini does so repeatedly on numerous self-published websites.
  • a New Age concept of limited currency, derived from Hopi mythology.
  • TRUE. The “Fifth World” is a New Age notion, that has an extremely limited usage (limited chiefly to Cesidio Tallini), and is stolen from Hopi Native American mythology.

--Gene_poole 10:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Microstate vs Micronation

There appears to be some misunderstanding of the above terms.

"microstate" is a widely accepted term used to describe small "real" countries (ie recognised by others) that are variously described as having less than a certain population; sometimes this is given as 2 million, and other times it is given as 300,000. The following references illustrate this usage: [4], [5], [6].--Gene_poole 00:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Micronation is used as a term of self-description by literally thousands of entities and individuals. Any suggestion that the word somehow does "not exist", or that it is a synonym for "microstate" is absolutely false. Hundreds of websites make reference to the term precisely within the stated context, as a simple google search will reveal.

Micropatrology is a term coined in the 1970s by early researchers on the subject. It refers to the study of both small "real" countries and "micronations". The term is part of the nomenclature of at least one group who have published a book on the micronation aspect of the subject: [7]. A Google search on "micropatrology" returns 448 [8] results, including links to the following usages: A reference to the International Micropatrological Society (founded in the 1970s) and [9]. Again, any suggestion that the word does somehow "not exist" is absolutely nonsensical. --Gene_poole 08:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The word "Micronation" is not in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which supports the sentence "While the term micronation is often used as a self-description by the unrecognized entities discussed in this article, it is not in general use in that sense; the term does not occur in dictionaries." which "Gene Poole" is trying to delete. Samboy 23:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A Google search for the term "micronation" returns 13,000 results [10]. while an AltaVista search returns 18,200 results [11]. This shows the statement that the "term is not in general use in that sense" to be false. --Gene_poole 23:24, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the term "microstate" is listed in the :Merriam-Webster dictionary, without a synonym. Furthermore, a search of Britannica Online for "microstate" returns 13 results [12], while a search of the United Nations Organization's website returns 14 results [13]. All these references relate to small sovereign states. A search of both these sites for the term "micronation" returns ZERO result. This shows the assertion that "microstate" and "micronation" are synonyms to be false. --Gene_poole 02:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Of course they're not synonyms: microstate is an actual word, which appears in reputable, printed, dictionaries, while micronation is a neologism and should be so marked. - Nunh-huh 10:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion. --Gene_poole 10:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
One group publishing a book does not define terms. Nor does the self-description of "micronations" change the fact that outside of their narrow circles, the term is more likely used as a synonym for microstate. So the article has to make that clear. Gzornenplatz 08:48, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for providing another example of how you completely ignore documented facts wherever they disagree with your POV. Others can draw their own conclusions from your ludicrous contention that thousands of documented instances of a phenomenon are meaningless, however I will simply point out that there is no evidence that any person who uses the term "microstate" uses "micronation" (which, by the way, you apparently believe doesn't exist anyway - so I fail to see how it could be a synonym for anything) as a synonym.--Gene_poole 08:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My point stands. So since we don't get any further here, I may ask you right away, will you accept mediation on this, or can we take it straight to arbitration? Gzornenplatz 09:07, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
The "point" is that you have no "point". Either provide evidence of your assertions or cease vandalising the article - because that is precisely what repeated reverts that are unsupported by coherent, valid documentation on the talk page are - and the 3-edit rule does not apply to vandalism. If you persist in making changes of this nature I will move to have you banned. There is no requirement for mediation or arbitration. You either follow procedure or you do not - and if you do not, I will take appropriate action.--Gene_poole 09:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, for the hard of reading, I repeat my point: One group publishing a book does not define terms. It doesn't matter how much you provide "valid documentation" of the existence of the group or the book. My proof is that neither of the two terms in question occurs on dictionary.com, which indexes many dictionaries. [14] [15]. The terms are not in common use, and are inherently POV. Gzornenplatz 09:24, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Well, for the hard of comprehending I will repeat my point: Thousands (and quite possibly tens of thousands) of documented instances of a usage - including in dozens of press, radio and television stories - make a phenomenon irrefutably real and irrefutably notable. Similarly, a single printed instance of a term, within the context of the study of a particular subject, defines both its physical existence and its meaning - particularly if there is no alternate or prior usage. Finally, a lone Wikipedia editor with a bee in his/her bonnet, making undocumented assertions that 2 words with already established and totally different meanings are in fact synonyms, when nobody else in existence accepts that this is so, is purely and simply wrong.--Gene_poole 09:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is clear from your tone that further discussion is not conducive to reaching any agreement here, so I refer to my question about mediation above. Gzornenplatz 09:46, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
It is clear from your comments that you do not wish to conduct a discussion based on cited facts and documented realities, but instead are concerned only in maintaining your obsessive campaign of inserting derogatory POV content into any micronation articles that come to your attention - thereby guaranteeing that any attempt at formal dispute resolution will ultimately be long, painful and pointless. I do not intend to humour you in this manner. If you initiate vandalism I will take the necessary steps in response. I have nothing further to say beyond that. --Gene_poole 09:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
To add my two cents here, since "Gene Poole" has gotten in arguments with multiple people, I think arbitration, not mediation is appropriate at this point. He's rubbed Stuart Smith, Gzornenplatz, and myself the wrong way here, and I think he needs a Wiki vacation or arbitration at this point. He is disruptive, and not a pleasant Wikipedian. Samboy 21:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not Vandalism

"Gene Poole" (Disclaimer: "Gene Poole" is a psudonym; he is really Mr. George Cruickshank and considers himself the "emperor" of Atlantium), in the latest edit war, is claiming that the edits of Gzornenplatz are vandalism. This is not true. It's an editing dispute; if "Gene Poole" wishes to take it to mediation or arbitration, I would like my voice to be heard too. I am reverting "Gene"'s edits until a third party feels that Gzornenplatz's changes are unreasonable. Samboy 23:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Really, Mr. Cruickshank. Do you really believe that this is vandalism? How do you explain this and this?

Samboy 21:10, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As you appear not to have read to the bottom of this page I will post the following again for your benefit:

Just in case there is any doubt that interpolating false content into an article somehow is NOT vandalism, please read the following definition from [16]: Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.and Sneaky vandalism - Adding misinformation and typos. --Gene_poole 23:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know that you have a fantasy in your head that it is vandalism. Please believe me, Mr. Cruickshank, that this is a fantasy with no basis in reality. I don't think it is vandalism, nor does this person or this person. I know you have something broken in you that makes you thing something that is a fantasy in your head has objective reality, but please let go of the fantasy that this is vandalism. Samboy 22:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Those reviewing this page may wish to note Samboy's (a) use of personal abuse above, and (b) continued failure to respond to or cite sources to support the irrefutably false content he is attempting to interpolate into this article. --Gene_poole 22:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Documented Article Vandalism

As neither Gzornenplatz nor Samboy have provided any third party sources on this talk page to support the POV that they are repeatedly attempting to interpolate into this article, nor have they rationally responded to the sources cited by me in this page that disagree with their POV, I have properly reported the actions of Gzornenplatz, who initiated this instance of edit warring, as vandalism. If Samboy persists in vandalising the article I intend reporting his actions similarly. I will continue to restore the legitimate content of this article for as long as necessary. --Gene_poole 00:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's an edit war. And you know it. Samboy 00:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I REPEAT: As neither Gzornenplatz nor Samboy have provided any third party sources on this talk page to support the POV that they are repeatedly attempting to interpolate into this article, nor have they rationally responded to the sources cited by me in this page that disagree with their POV, I have properly reported the actions of Gzornenplatz, who initiated this instance of edit warring, as vandalism. If Samboy persists in vandalising the article I intend reporting his actions similarly. I will continue to restore the legitimate content of this article for as long as necessary. --Gene_poole 00:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just in case there is any doubt that interpolating false content into an article somehow is NOT vandalism, please read the following definition from [17]: Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.and Sneaky vandalism - Adding misinformation and typos. --Gene_poole 04:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Republic of New Africa

A new one, seems notable. add to list. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

why dont you guys just grow up???? its only a silly bit of information on micronations, geez guys, GET A LIFE!!!

Please sign your postings, and confine your comments to matters of relevance to the article. --Gene_poole 22:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Long Republic

Another one to add to the list. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spurious Content Interpolation: Notice to Admins

Please note repeated interpolations of irrefutably false content into this article by Gzornenplatz and Samboy. Interpolations by these editors are unsupported by documented citations. Continued removal of false content is supported by the multiple citations noted by me in the "Microstate vs Micronation" section above. --Gene_poole 03:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I am not going to protect this page just because three editors are unwilling to take any meaningful steps towards compromise or dispute resolution. However, let me suggest some things that will probably help with this dispute.

  1. It is never acceptable to simply revert a user's contributions on site, unless that user has been banned through the proper channels.
  2. Personal attacks do not further debate. Simply because one user is biased towards a topic does not make them de facto unacceptable editors on a topic. We address contributions here, not people.

Now, having established those two ground rules, I'll step in here and see what I can do to mediate this dispute somewhat. Would all three of you (Gzornenplatz, Samboy, and gene) please succinctly state below what the dispute regarding this article is. Please note, I want to know what the issue about article content is. I do not care who is the emperor of what, I care what content is being removed or reverted, and why you think that content is important or bad. Snowspinner 04:02, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

You mention that I am "unwilling to take any meaningful steps towards compromise or dispute resolution"; I believe this is in error, considering that the issues between "Gene Poole" and myself are undergoing arbitration at this point and I am collecting evidence in my case against "Gene Poole". Samboy 21:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The matter is simple: Gzornenplatz and Samboy propose to replace this:

Version 1

Small, generally recognised states such as Fiji, Monaco and San Marino are sometimes mistakenly referred to as micronations. The correct term for small recognized sovereign states is microstate.

The study of micronations and microstates is termed micropatrology, and the hobby of establishing and operating micronations is known as micronationalism.

with this:

Version 2

The term micronation may also mistakingly refer to small, generally recognised states such as Nauru, Monaco and San Marino, but such nations are better called microstates; this article is not about them. The term micronation is often used as a self-description by the unrecognized entities discussed in this article, it is not in general use in that sense; the term does not occur in dictionaries. It reflects only the self-image of those entities, as it literally means "small nation", but the claim that those entities are nations is of course not accepted outside of those entities and their small circles of sympathizers.

The basis for this proposed change is that version 1 is "POV".

I contend that version 1 simply, succinctly and without the use of distorted language or charged personal opinion, establishes a sound foundation to the article, and is based on multiple instances of terminology usage, supported by multiple citations.

I contend that version 2, aside from being poorly written, has been framed in a manner deliberately intended to present the subject of the article in a derisive and misleading manner, in accord with the oft-publicly stated POV of both Gzornenplatz and Samboy; that it is as a result unneccesarily convoluted, and that it makes numerous false assertions and implications, none of which are supported by third party citations.

The version 2 assertion that "microstate" and "micronation" are synonyms is irrefutably false, as per my numerous citations in the above referenced section.

I generally agree with "Gene Poole" here, as my last version of the article intro shows. That said, I don't think using language like "irrefutably" does anything to help "Gene Poole"s cause. Samboy 21:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The version 2 assertion that the term "micronation" is "not in general use in this context" is irrefutably false, as per my citations in the above referenced section.

The word "micronation" does not occur in dictionaries; see, for example [18] Samboy 21:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The version 2 assertion that "micronation" does "not occur in dictionaries" is correct - but as such, this assertion directly contradicts the prior assertion that the word is a synonym for "microstate". As has been pointed out by another editor above, the term "micronation" is in fact a neologism - and one that has achieved extremely wide currency in precisely the form defined by version 1.

It's not in general use; it's not in dictionaries. Samboy 21:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Version 2 uses unsubstantiated POV terminology such as "small circle of sympathisers" and "of course" to falsely suggest that micronation phenonenon has limited currency.

I have removed the POV "of course" in my last version of the article intro. "small circle of sympathisers" is not POV; these "micronations" aren't in the CIA world fact book, for example. Samboy 21:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Version 2 expunges all reference to the term "micropatrology", in order to falsely imply by exclusion that micronations have never been studied as a phenomenon, and therefore their intellectual value is negligible - thereby justifying the derisive overall tone of version 2. In supporting this term's inclusion I have cited several instances of usage, one dating back to the 1970s. These show both that the term exists, and that it is used exclusively in the manner described in version 1.

A discussion of "micropatrology" belongs in the body, not the header of the article. Samboy 21:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Version 2 expunges reference to the fact that "micronationalism" is a widely accepted hobby, without explanation or supporting citations.

The problem here, as is the problem in general about "micronation"s is that they don't, in the real world, matter to anyone except (in general) the people that have their own micronations. "Gene Poole", as the owner of a micronation, has an axe to grind here--the axe that Micronations are more important than they really are. Samboy 21:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Version 2 falsely implies that the terms "nation" and "state" are synonyms.

They can be, in certain contexts. Such as the context of the article header. Samboy 21:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--Gene_poole 04:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I responded to Gene Poole's points before; see the heading "Microstate vs Micronation". Gzornenplatz 20:58, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

It may be a good to reiterate you points here, where a third party can read them. Samboy 21:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Any third party is capable of reading above on this page. Gzornenplatz 21:41, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I note with disappointmemt - but no real surprise - that when offered yet another opportunity to do so, Gzornenplatz and Samboy elect merely to repeat arguments that I have long ago shown to be false with the use of numerous third party citations, which they continue to deign to ignore. I do not intent to waste further effort on this matter. --Gene_poole 21:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I further note that Gzornenplatz continues to revert, and continues to falsely claim the term micronation is "not in general use", without answering the citations provided by myself above that show this to be false, and despite the fact that the opening paragraphs have been substantially re-written to qualify the precise meaning and use of both "micronation" and "microstate".--Gene_poole 22:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's fine. I can rad Gzornenplatz's version above. Let's not protect the page - give me a few hours to look all of this over, though, and I'll see if I can find some compromise wording. Snowspinner 22:33, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your help trying to resolve this nasty dispute. "Gene Poole" doesn't stress me the way he used to, since I know that his threats and personal attacks is part of a pattern which is not acceptable here on Wikipedia; this is why he is undergoing arbitration right now. Samboy 22:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Initial Observatoins

In no particular order, here are some initial observations I have about this situation.

  1. The hostility that exists between Samboy and Gene Poole is not helpful. I recognize that you two don't like each other, but in the absence of any ruling that one of you may not edit, you are both legitimate contributors, and ought treat the other with respect. There is no need to get snippy or snide. Doing so does not help your case at all.
  2. The lack of dictionary reference to micronation does not bother me as such - it is a neologism, and is not likely to appear in dictionaries. That does not mean the term is not in use in some circles. Gene poole seems to have provided a good enough citation that the word is at least used like that, so I don't have any real objection to the claim that this is a (not the) definition of micronation.
  3. I am reasonably persuaded that a layperson may confuse micronation and microstate. I certainly would have before I stumbled upon this debate, and I even know what a micronation is. So I think some disambiguation about this up front would not be unreasonable.
  4. That said, I'm reasonably persuaded from the contentiousness of the issue that declaring the words to mean one thing and not another would be POV. So I think whatever wording is settled on needs to focus on the usage of the words in the article, leaving the larger question of what the words mean in the world in general up in the air as the ambiguous and debated question it seems to be.

Still working on an actual compromise draft of the paragraphs - should have it later tonight. Snowspinner 23:11, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed paragraphs

I propose the following:

Start the article with a disambiguation notice that reads

"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 such as Nauru, Monaco and San Marino, see microstate."

Remove all further discussion of the microstate/micronation division.

This seems to me to have the advantage of completely eschewing any discussion over what the "proper" terminology is, and thus avoiding the POV minefield that this seems to be.

As for micropatrology and micronationalism, if that's all the information that's going to be offered about them, I think for stylistic and flow reasons, it would be better further down in the article. That said, if there's more to be written about them, I would support the sentence staying with links to articles on the two topics.

What do you all think of this proposal? Snowspinner 23:19, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for eschewing relevant discussion just to avoid conflict with Gene Poole. It has to be noted that those terms are not generally accepted outside the circles who made them up (and who have an obvious bias in the matter). Gzornenplatz 23:23, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I think it is worthwhile trying to come up with a compromise here. If you have issues with Gene Poole's behavior, I welcome you to submit evidence to the evidence page in the arbitration going on between him and myself. I also observe that you have reverted my own attempts to come up with compromise wording; I don't think this is an appropriate way to handle a difference in points of view. Samboy 00:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My point is not to eschew the discussion in some absolute sense. If you want to have the argument, go ahead. My point was merely that Wikipedia is not the place to try to hash out absolute meanings of words - no original research and whatnot. The other thing is that I'm not that convinced that the debate matters. I mean, it doesn't seem earth-shatteringly important. It seems like a candidate for lamest edit wars ever, really. (Except I think this article is already on lamest edit wars ever).
I mean, unless I'm misreading the debate here, what it looks like is that a small group of people who are in favor of micronations support the term, and like a large group of people, who are probably mostly apathetic to the idea of micronations beyond thinking that they're kind of silly, does not use the term and does not get very bent out of shape about it. I have a hard time believing that there are a whole lot of people who are losing sleep over the exact reasons for the distinction between micronation and microstate. Why not just make the distinction, put the articles where they go, and leave it at that? Snowspinner 23:30, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I still haven't figured out what to do with paragraph two of Gene's preferred version. I feel that "wide general use" is kind of misleading, as I don't think the knowledge of something like Sealand is in wide general use, but I think the note that it's a neologism is probably a good one. I'll make a pass at revising it. Snowspinner 23:30, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

This should simply not be a matter of debate, as there is no uncertainty whatsoever concerning usage of the term "micronation". I contend that 13,000-18,000 internet references, and many dozens of high profile international media references in everything from the "New York Times" to "Wired", more than qualify a term as being in "general use". --Gene_poole 23:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I knew about Sealand before being a Wikipedian; I heard about them because of the colo company HavenCo. I had no knowledge of any other micronations, though, nor of the micronational movement, except for knowing the carticature of the person in the mental institution thinking that they are Napeleon. Samboy 23:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I didn't know about Sealand, though I suppose on some level I assumed that there were people who were creating micronations, because, well, it seems like the sort of thing that people do. But that's neither here nor there. I think if I walked out onto the street and polled people, most people would not know what Sealand was. :) Snowspinner 23:39, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Compromise wording posted

I've posted my attempt at a compromise. I moved the micronation/microstate distinction to a disambig notice at the top of the page. I cut the micropatology sentence as Gene indicated that he intended to add a section on that to the article. And I reworded the neologism paragraph to reflect that the term, along with micronations themselves, has not really penetrated into the mainstream.

How's this work for people? Snowspinner 04:44, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I like it a lot. I think it is a very good compromise. Thanks for the good work! Samboy 05:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It is generally acceptable, with the exception of the "not really penetrated into the mainstream" assertion. That is incorrect. The term has been used extensively by the mainstream media, as I indicated above, and have cited at great length in numerous discussions. Last time I checked the New York Times, Wire, The Guardian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the New Zealand Herald, Reuters, and the BBC (as a few English-language-only examples - there are dozens of other non-English language media references), were all mainstream; the combined audience and readership of these media is in the hundreds of millions, and they have all used the term in articles and broadcasts on the subject of "micronations". --Gene_poole 05:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's still my sense that the average joe does not know about or think about micronations. I've read the New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, Wired, and Reuters with varying amounts of frequency, and it was only Wikipedia that educated me about it. I mean, I'm sure they've all mentioned it, but it's not as though micronations are making the front page of any paper with a great deal of frequency.
My concern is just that I don't want to give the impression that micronations are somehow a major topic of conversation. Most people don't talk about them at all, I think, and so the term probably isn't in that widespread use. Still, if you have alternate phrasing, please propose it here. Snowspinner 05:37, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
What about "And the term is generally accepted among those who discuss the concept"? Snowspinner 05:38, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
The average joe doesn't know or think much about a lot of things - but we don't go about inserting qualifying statements in articles on such arcane subjects as quantum physics and higher mathematics that are of significance to only tiny numbers of people globally simply because they are not numerically prevalent - so I see nocompelling reason to do so with this article. If qualification is insisted upon I propose "the term is a neologism first recorded in the 1990s that has entered general use by micronationalists and commentators on the phenomenon". --Gene_poole 05:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The difference between quantum physics/higher mathematics and micronations is that the average Joe on the street probably knows what quantum physics and higher maths are (even if their knowledge is limited to "That's stuff really smart people know about"), but probably doesn't know what Micronations are. Samboy 06:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm OK with Gene's wording above however. You? Snowspinner 14:10, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
I'm OK with the wording "Gene" suggests also. Samboy 21:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The part about "commentators" is nonsense. The topic simply doesn't occur in mainstream media other than in the occasional once-in-ten-years report about yet another curious Internet phenomenon. The term "micronation" may be used then (since it is the term those entities use themselves), but then it has to be always newly explained (or put in a context where the meaning becomes obvious) - no newspaper would just use the term assuming people already know what it means. Gzornenplatz 00:22, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Snowspinner's latest compromise is perfectly acceptable.--Gene_poole 00:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, look at this

It's a talk page! Cool! I wonder if Gene Poole and Gzornenplatz know that they can use this to try to work out a compromise wording instead of endlessly reverting each other! I bet not! Snowspinner 00:31, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy

I have removed the accuracy tag interpolated by Gzornenplatz, as the factual accuracy of the article is not under dispute --Gene_poole 00:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If Gzornenplatz disputes the accuracy, then there would appear to be a dispute regarding the accuracy. That said, let's see if the latest stab I took at it works for him. Snowspinner 00:38, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz has a documented history of posting accuracy and other tags to any article that disagrees with his POV. One editor's opinion does not constitute a valid dispute unles it is supported by citations, and I see no citations here. --Gene_poole 00:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I note that Gzornenplatz has again reverted the article such that the spurious inaccuracy tag has been re-interpolated. I shall let this stand for a period of 7 days. If after that time no instances of documented factual inaccuracy or supporting citations are provided by Gzornenplatz or any other editor, I intend removing it. --Gene_poole 00:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't going to revert the disputed paragraph, and left an accuracy tag instead. But if Gene Poole is even removing that, I might as well revert to my version. And no, your change is meaningless. Gzornenplatz 00:40, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Untrue. My change goes from suggesting that the term is in general use - which would suggest that, well, people wre writing about micronations all the time - to that the term is generally used for a purpose - which would suggest that no one calls micronations anything else. The difference, while small, is accurate. Snowspinner 00:41, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but "has entered general use" and "is now generally used" is exactly equivalent. Gzornenplatz 00:49, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
However "is now generally used by X" is different from "is now generally used." Snowspinner 00:50, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
So? That was not the change you made. Gzornenplatz 01:11, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
How's the current version? Snowspinner 01:18, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Another non-change. The part about "commentators" has to go. There are no commentators (as the term is usually understood) about "micronations". Also, the word "micronationalists" is likewise not in general use and therefore can not be used en passant like that; it has to be in quotes. Gzornenplatz 01:31, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Still not acceptable. It is not standard terminology except among the "micronationalists" themselves. Gzornenplatz 01:54, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but as no one else talks about micronations, that still works. I mean, the point is that there is no other terminology that people use. Snowspinner 02:15, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

That's not true. For non-"micronationalists", the topic is just not worth coining a special one-word term. That doesn't mean they have to use "micronation". The article itself gives examples of how people may refer to them - "fantasy countries", "online nations" etc. Gzornenplatz 02:23, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
What phrasing would you propose? Snowspinner 02:26, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
The one I used there. Gzornenplatz 02:35, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Here are the things I object to there. First, I think "micronationalists" is patronizing. There's nothing else that people call them, again, and putting it in quotes seems to imply a POV comment about them being illegitimate, etc. Second, I think the dictionaries issue is irrelevent - most neologisms aren't in the dictionary. Third, again, I think the term probably has about as wide currency as the idea of micronations, and so commenting on the term's failure to gain widespread currency seems misleading. Snowspinner 03:23, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Clearly you have by now gone from the role of a mediator to that of a partisan in this dispute. Again, you're wrong that there is nothing else that people call them; see above. And of course dictionaries contain neologisms, if they are in general use. As to your third point: yes, most people ignore those entities, therefore most people talking about them are those "micronationalists" themselves. Still, that doesn't mean that their self-description is an acceptable NPOV term for an encyclopaedia. Gzornenplatz 04:03, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
It's not so much that I've gone beyond being a mediator as that I don't understand why you're insisting on an especially inflammatory choice of phrasing. I'm trying to work on a compromise version, and you're insisting on a version that best communicates that micronations are a load of hooey. Which is not helpful. The use of scare quotes around "micronationalists" directly and distinctly implies illegitimacy, which is also not NPOV. Furthermore, although I can accept a list of other terms for micronations, I'm not seeing synonyms for "micronationalists" in the article. Can you perhaps come up with an acceptable phrasing that bypasses the need for the term "micronationalist" entirely? Snowspinner 04:08, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see anything inflammatory about my phrasing, and definitely nothing that says "micronations are a load of hooey". Indeed, by making such accusations you're rapidly moving this conversation to a point of pointlessness. You're not working on a compromise, you're making proposals which Gene Poole is just fine with. You're taking his side in the matter. Which you're entitled to - just don't pretend to be neutral here. As to the point, obviously "micronationalists" is derived from "micronation" and you can similarly make derivatives from the other terms, "fantasy nations" -> "fantasy nation builders" etc. The quotes are necessary because it's not a term in general use, it does not say anything about legitimacy. Gzornenplatz 04:20, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to make proposals which are acceptable to everybody. As Gene poole is one of the inerested parties, he is one of the people I need to satisfy. My problem with the scare quotes is that one of the many things they indicate is illegitimacy. And the context is not such that your intended meaning of the scare quotes is clearly communicated. Snowspinner 04:28, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

The meaning of the quotes is perfectly obvious, indicating "so-called by themselves". Leaving the quotes off as if it were an established term would make no sense, as its meaning is neither explained by the article nor would the reader find it in any dictionary. Gzornenplatz 04:40, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
I hereby propose the following compromise that is an accurate appraisal of the situation, and should satisfy everyone: "Micronation is a neologism in general use by everyone involved in, interested in, or commenting on the subject of small unrecognised states, with the sole exception of Gzornenplatz".--Gene_poole 04:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sure that comment is going to go a great deal towards making this situation calmer and more productive. Snowspinner 04:57, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry for the flippancy, but the "situation" is beyond a joke; treating it as such is to my mind a valid response. --Gene_poole 05:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is the provenance of wikipedia's distinction between "microstates" like Monaco and San Marino, nd "micronations" like these sad sacks described here? What is the provenance of the term "microstate?" Is the word "micronation" ever used to refer to countries like Monaco? If it is (and a google check would probably be useless for determining this, given the prevalence of micronations on the internet), to use that term for an article about countries that don't actually exist seems problematic. john k 14:11, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The term "microstate" is apparently used by the UN and can be found in dictionaries ("An independent country that is very small in area and population"), so it is the preferred term for those states. However, the prefix "micro" can be added to anything to mean "small", so of course "micronation" can be used to mean a small nation. The other meaning has only been appropriated by a small Internet subculture and has not (at least not yet) become accepted general use. Consider this quote from Forbes, November 25, 2002: "There's no shortage of dubious jurisdictions peddling governmental trappings without legitimacy. They are generally no more than a Web site and maybe a bank account. Below, a sampling of "micronations," as they fancy themselves." Note the quotes around "micronation" and the "as they fancy themselves". We should include similar qualifications when we use the term. Gzornenplatz 19:42, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think Forbes makes any effort to be NPOV. Snowspinner 19:51, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think you make any effort to be NPOV, or you misunderstand what it means (it doesn't mean "satisfy all cranks"). Gzornenplatz 19:55, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
No. But it means treating views with respect and fairness, and not with the usual tone of "Hey, let's laugh at the silly Internet people" that a popular press article on Micronations takes. Look at it this way. We're talking about people who declare their apartments to be independent countries. This is some of the silliest stuff on the Internet - I agree with you. But it speaks for itself. It doesn't require a skeptical or dismissive tone. The matter speaks for itself. Snowspinner 20:00, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Then why do you want to use their POV self-descriptions as if they were generally accepted? Calling an apartment a micronation suggests that it is in fact a nation. Gzornenplatz 20:11, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
I think that effect is muted when it's done in the context of a whole article on the concept, honestly. That said, how's the newest phrasing? Snowspinner 20:15, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
That depends on how the article explains the term, which is the whole thing we're talking about here. And the newest phrasing is still wrong. It is only the most common term among their supporters. Gzornenplatz 20:24, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
At this point I'm going to have to ask to see some kind of evidence that any of the other terms are more common in general than micronation. Snowspinner 20:36, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
You want to introduce the claim, so you have to prove that "micronation" is the most common term. What seems clear to me is that it is a POV term designed to legitimize those entities, and as such unlikely to be uncritically adopted by the majority of people who think those entities are silly. Gzornenplatz 20:45, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

While it may seem unlikely, I think that, if you intend to assert something else to be more common, you need to present some evidence here. You're asserting that some term is more common than micronation. What is that term? Snowspinner 21:04, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to include a specific assertion into the article, you do. The burden of proof is on your side. I don't think there's a practical way to determine the "most common term", so any such claim should be kept out of the article. Gzornenplatz 21:34, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
You, on the other hand, are asserting that the term "micronation" is not the generally accepted term and requires scare quotes. This seems equally unfounded. Snowspinner 00:22, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
It's you who calls this "scare quotes". I don't see any unproven claim connected to the quotes; it indicates that it's a self-description, and not a regular dictionary term - that much is undeniable. Let's just avoid any claim about what the "most common term" is. Gzornenplatz 00:36, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
"Scare quotes" is the proper term for when quotation marks are used to indicate that a term is in some way not strictly accurate. It's not a term that implies anything - it's just what you call that. Snowspinner 00:40, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
The term "scare quotes" usually implies inappropriate use of quotes, i.e. the use of quotes to give the impression that something is not strictly accurate although in fact it is. Gzornenplatz 00:55, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
The fact of the matter has been, and remains, that the term "micronation" is invariably the only term of description that is commonly used to describe small unrecognised statelike entities by anyone likely to encounter them. It is has been used, and continues to be used in this context in dozens of international mainstream press, radio and TV stories and articles, in which no other terminology is used. Whether Gzornenplatz is sufficiently intellectually endowed to grasp this fundamental incontrovertible factual reality or not is irrelevant. It is a demonstrated, widely documented fact that no amount of aggressive POV-pushing and semantic gymnastics by that particular editor is capable of altering. --Gene_poole 01:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another point: Should Sabah really be noted as a precursor to a micronation? It was taken over by a white adventurer, sure, but it's a normal sized place. It certainly bears little enough similarity to the Empire of Atlantium. With respect to the dispute you guys are having, it seems to me that we should definitely use scare quotes for derivatives like "micronationalists" - this is a completely idiosyncratic term, and bears little relationship to the literal meaning of "micronationalist," which would be someone who is a small nationalist (a midget demogogue, perhaps?). As to micronation itself, I'm not sure. Given that this term might just as easily be used to refer to microstates, I think we should be clear about who uses this term (as clear as we can be, at least). A Lexis-Nexis search does not reveal many results for micronation - a New York Times article from 2000, which calls them "so-called micronations." There's a 1999 article in This Magazine (Canadian). An article from Agence France Presse about a meeting in Helsinki of micronations. Probably some more (it gets tiresome entering in different domains to search on Lexis-Nexis) But pretty slim picking. john k 22:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you mean Sarawak, not Sabah. You're right - I don't see what it has to do with "micronations". Looks like another attempt by Gene Poole to confuse real and imaginary states, or to try and claim that "micronations" can become real states, which is certainly not the case here - the adventurer in question did not unilaterally proclaim himself ruler, his territory was regularly ceded to him by the sultan of Brunei. Gzornenplatz 22:32, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'll just note that I consider the link to the "Imperial Collection" website unacceptable. It is a POV site by Gene Poole designed to legitimize the Empire of Atlantium (i.e. his apartment) by putting it on the same level as Biafra or Katanga (real historical secessionist states). Gzornenplatz 06:11, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yes and? Feel free to put links to sites that say the Empire of Atlantium is crazy, but that site has a decent amount of information on it. POV doesn't really seem to me to be a sensible dispute for an external link, because it can so easily be balanced. I mean, plenty of articles link to POV sties in external links. Snowspinner 06:36, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
This is not useful information when it quietly implies Atlantium is a significant entity on par with Biafra etc., which as a matter of fact (not POV) it isn't. The site is simply self-promotion and therefore inappropriate. It doesn't matter who adds it, your stunt of removing it and adding it again is meaningless. Gzornenplatz 07:01, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
If you can find a link not maintained by Gene Poole that catalogs currency and flag information for a bunch of micronations, feel free to replace the link. But past that, I have trouble seeing how an external link can be a POV violation. A link can be irrelevent, sure, or self-promotion (Which I agree this was - Gene should not have been the one to add the link. But that doesn't mean the link was bad - just that Gene's behavior was). But it can't really be POV. I suppose an external links section entirely biased towards pro-micronation sites would be POV, but, again, easily fixable by adding more links - not by removal. Snowspinner 16:50, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't matter at all who adds the link. If he made a useful site to link to, he might as well add the link himself. But even though this site may contain useful parts, it is not useful on the whole when it contains deliberate misinformation which is the interpolation of Atlantium among serious historical entities, implying a notability of Atlantium that is objectively nonexistent. Gzornenplatz 16:59, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the reason I removed the link is because Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion (see item 18). If other editors feel that the link in question is relevent, it will be added back in due course (and I will not oppose the addition of this link by other editors; I do bow to consensus and respect other editor's wishes). Samboy 00:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Could this be solved through a link description? Snowspinner 17:21, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
The description already clearly does so. This is another Gzornenplatz non-issue.--Gene_poole 22:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As the POV dispute tag has been restored by Snowspinner I shall await the posting of evidence of such a dispute. If it is not forthcoming within a reasonable timeframe I will remove the tag. --Gene_poole 23:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Gzornenplatz's objection is clearly stated - he thinks the link is POV. And he's explained his reasoning for that plausibly. Snowspinner 00:31, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz has stated nothing more than that he/she objects to the inclusion of a link to a valid non-commercial online reference site that has been acknowledged as an extensively citable source by specialist publications and organizations in the UK, US, Australia and Sweden, for the sole reason that the site author is associated with an entity whose inclusion in Wikipedia he/she has long sought to expunge, by any and all available means, by initiating countless edit wars across multiple articles, entirely without success. Gzornenplatz's idle speculations concerning the alleged motivations of other editors do not constitite grounds for a valid POV dispute, and until he/she elects to cite valid third party references in support his/her assertions, or else supplies alternative content/links that show that the inclusion of the link in question is redundant, any suggestion that the present "dispute" is anything more than an instance of spurious attention-seeking theatrics must be considered false. Incidentally, the link itself has been in place since early 2003, and was only deleted recently, without provision of a valid reason for its removal by whoever did so. --Gene_poole 01:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
His objection, stated above, is that the site puts Biafra and Atlantium on the same level. Snowspinner 01:31, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
If that is in fact the basis of the "dispute" it is obviously false. The site makes no such claim, and clearly states its primary purpose as a catalogue of physical artefacts from "self-declared independent states, secessionist entities, self-determination movements, alternative governments, rebel groups and new country projects". All of the listed entities thus fall within the legitimate purview of the site. The burden of proof to illustrate how this implies that two of the listed entities - Biafra and Atlantium - are somehow "on the same level", lies with Gzornenplatz. Should such proof not be forthcoming I will in due course, as I have already stated, remove the tag.--Gene_poole 01:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As 7 weeks have now elapsed without a single talk page comment from Gzornenplatz, the only editor who claims there is a dispute, I am removing the dispute tag from this article, as there is obviously no real dispute.--Gene_poole 09:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I notice, in this edit, that "Gene Poole" reinstates the link with the edit summary "restore external reference, as per Snowspinner's earlier comments". I do not think this is Snowspinner's current opinion on the link in question. While Snowspinner did reinstate the link here, he removed the link again in a subsequent edit.

If Snowspinner approves of the link in question, I think it is far more appropriate for him to restore it himself, instead of having "Gene Poole" restore the link for him. That in mind, I removed the link again this morning (without logging in from an IP), because it currently appears that only "Gene Poole" approves of the link, which goes against Wikipedia's policy of "no self promotion" (What Wikipedia is not item 18) since the link is to a website that "Gene Poole" is the owner of. Samboy 21:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While I would prefer a link to a website with the same information, but less controversy, I think that the page is well served by a link to information on various micronations. Snowspinner 21:58, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I am reinstating the link with the text "Page offering information about various secessionalist states, including some micronations." Snowspinner 22:00, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I have fixed a typo in the restored link. Samboy 22:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

unquestioning respect and obedience

Um... so is there anyone who would truly object to a rewording or simple remove of this blatently POV paragraph?

Given that most people are inculated with an unquestioning respect and obedience for governments and their symbols from an early age it is probably not surprising that certain unscrupulous individuals have sought to derive personal financial benefit from the gullible by establishing micronational entities that have a fraudulent intent.

I don't think that insulting most people is going to win Wikipedia any points for neutrality among the general public.

func(talk) 17:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reword away. Snowspinner 17:57, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Madland

Hello, I am Edgard Portela, or Emperor Edgard II of Madland. I was offended to see how Madland was catalogued in this article. Madland is not a two-person micronation. We are flourishing and about to reach the 10 citizen mark. Madland is not aspiring for land at this moment, we are a political simulation. Maybe in the future we'll claim land. You can visit our website at http://www.madlandezboard.tk, and the name of our micronation changed almost a year ago to the Empire of the Madlandians. This article is straight-up propaganda against legitimate attepmts of establishing a micronation. This article severely hindered Madland's initial development because Madland was labeled as a joke in it. Please, stop this non-sense.

"Legitimate attempts of establishing a micronation"? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "legitimate". ;-) I agree with this being "straight-up propaganda": a 10 person entity is undeserving of any mention whatsoever in Wikipedia, it isn't notable. Emperor Func XIIIII of the Silly Party(You May Speak To HRH Me) 19:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Legitimate, as in "right to self-governance," as is also the case of Gardistan. Currently with a population of 31 citizens, Gardistan may have only 45 sq.cm. undisputed land at the moment, but our claim on those 45 sq.cm. were done specifically to establish political independence. We intend to "go shopping" for land in the future, opting for a peaceful way of expanding our landmass. But there's a lot of internal political work to be done first. -King Gard of Gardistan 15:05, 02 Dec 2004 (CET)

Dispute notice

I hereby declare that I maintain the disputes raised before regarding the POV nature of the term "micronation" as used here, contrary to its dictionary meaning, as well as regarding the misinformation link to Gene Poole's website that mixes real entities like Biafra and Katanga, which led to wars causing the deaths of millions, with trivial nonsense like his apartment-empire Atlantium. Gzornenplatz 13:37, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

As Gzornenplatz produced no evidence whatsoever in support of either of his above POV assertions during the more than generous period of 7 weeks I allowed for him to do so (as per my post of 19 September, above), and as it appears on the basis of his flippant comments immediately above that he evidently has no intention of doing so in the forseeable future, I will assume henceforth that his alleged dispute on this subject is an invented nonsense designed to sow controversy where no controversy actually exists, and I will therefore respond accordingly, in the interests of responsible editing.--Gene_poole 13:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree with your assertions, and I, as you well know, am no fan of Gene Poole (For example: I am enjoying being flamed by him here right now, just as you are enjoying being flamed by him). That said, it may be better to bring up the issues here before getting in to yet another revert war. Quite frankly, Wikipedia is a place where we sometimes concede to consensus. If you have an issue with an editor's edit, create a vote here, or get someone like Showspinner to help resolve things, put the issue up on the requests for comment page, whatever. Wikipedia is a community project. This is its strength and its weakness. Things don't always go your way here. Doing non-stop reverts is not productive to Wikipedia, not productive to your stress level, and not productive for whatever editor you are in a revert war with. In other words, chill out, be patient, and let consensus take its course here. Samboy 07:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Satirocity

Y'know, what I dont like is that they kept the United Oceania article but they deleted the Satirocity one. There were about 20 results on Google to zero and a great website that tells all about it called http://micronations.wikia.com/wiki/United_Sovereign_Independent_Democratic_Empire_of_Satirocity

Personal attacks

Please keep in mind the rules about personal attacks have recently changed. In particular, check out Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. Samboy 23:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Micronation/Archive_1&oldid=1248784578"