Talk:Republic of Minerva

message: I have corrected the edited the "promotional information" to correctly reflect the current history concerning the Minerva topic. Whether it is liked or not (not saying that I do), the "Principality" has demonstrated serious intention, and has exercised authority against Minerva "spoofs." Further, this latest project has been featured in various print and broadcast publications that are not affiliated with them directly, providing some measure of reference. If it was simply made up, that'd be one thing, but this group has been around for some years and has been published several times.  68.143.5.138 15:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put that link in not knowing it had anything to do with Gene Poole, I just came across it using Google. So its removal was unintentional vandalism. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you look at the derogatory comment Gzornenplatz appended to his/her link removal attempt you will see that that it constituted deliberate vandalism. --Gene_poole 12:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: The link is inappropriate (see Talk:Hutt River Province) even if in this case it wasn't Gene Poole who put it in originally. How such an inclusion dispute would be vandalism, intentional or otherwise, remains for you to explain. Gzornenplatz 12:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
My father was involved in the Republic of Minerva project, and I will try to find out any additional information I can to add on. Tony Jonick
I am extremely disappointed to see that that genuine, verifiable information regarding the "Principality" and its recent activities was arbitrarily deleted, and that searches for the "Principality" are now diverted back to the of "Republic" page (with its silly numismatic disputes).  To add insult to injury, the modifier(s?) then alleged some sort of "fraud".  If any "fraud" was committed, it was perpetrated by those (vandals?  censors?) who removed the fair and non-biassed information about the Principality, and also redirected the "Principality" page incorrectly back to the "Republic" page.
Previously, I had relied on Wikipedia as a valid source for information (for my research and radio commentary, etc. as well as for personal use).  What I have learned from this experience is that, in certain areas (such as current events and foreign affairs), Wikipedia probably should no longer be considered a reliable source for unbiased information, since valid contributions can easily be removed by those who have more time to monitor and control what remains there.  Anyone with "too much time on their hands" can easily distort or suppress what 'e does not like; ergo, subjectivity triumphs over objectivity, and Wikipedia becomes useles for any topic about which there may be controversy (or axes to grind!)
Having more important things to do than pepetually lurk (and fight those who remove valid additions), I don't expect to monitor this "discussion".  However, I would welcome any serious comments/arguments via email to me at "mailto:bam@wusb.fm" .  Tripodics 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Would the person currently adding unverifiable promotional information to this artice stop doing so. At best "Prince Calvin" is a tiny footnote to the story of Minerva, and his "claim" cannot be either verified or enforced. He is also not the only current non-Tongan/Fijian "claimant" to Minerva. The flag also not the correct historic flag, and seems to be a recent concoction. --Gene_poole 22:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am adding the most recent information that is available and is, as per posted media references, verifiable. At the least, the Principality project is relavent simply because it is the most recent and strongest group to make a claim. Yes, there have been others, and the Principality has actually injoined some of those groups against use of the name. Which other group has a claim as strong as these people? The matter of legality and right or wrong as it concerns actual possession and matters of international law is up to courts to decide, not us. In addition to media reference and recognition, the Principality retains a pending US service mark on the name. All of that information is verifiable. As per your standard, Gene Pool, you require 2 print sources, and this group meets the standard. Allow the information to be heard, whether you agree with it or not. Not that I necessarily agree with these guys, but it is relavent. Thanks. 68.59.43.124 22:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "principality group" is not the most recent claimant, and until such time as they do more than write about themselves in Wikipedia their claim effectively has no more nor less substance than those of any other claimant. The media reports serve only to verify the group's existence - not confirm its claims. Unless further sources come to light we must assume that the "principality" is basically a website run by a 20-year-old US university student - because that is the only information in the public domain on the subject. --Gene_poole 01:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Please explain how adding recent and verified, as we have established previously, is vandalism. On the contrary, you are the vandal, as you are restricting free access to real, verified information to suit your own view. That is the true vandalism. 68.59.43.124 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotional insertions

message: I distinctly recall reading some months ago a news report on the Minerva "principality's" website about "Prince Calvin" celebrating his 20th birthday. This reference has now, strangely, disappeared. This leaves us with almost no verifiable information about the "principality", leaving us to assume that it is largely, if not wholly, an ephemeral online project. --Gene_poole 21:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been researching the subject of micronations for over the past semester for a sociology thesis. To be precise, according to my research, he's 25, not that it matters - age assertions seems to be unverifiable. There is quite a bit of information out there, but it seems to be of no real concern here - all it takes is a little active research. So I guess we'll just chalk the whole phenomenon up to some sap getting online kicks, like so many other online micronational movements without legitimate territory.Minervan 21:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been researching the subject for over 2 decades, and I'm very familiar with people who make ludicrous claims that are unsupported by such troublesome details as hard evidence. It goes with the territory. Until sources showing something more about the "principality" that the fact that it exists emerge, we must assume it is an ephemeral creation. --Gene_poole 01:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "My standards" are not the issue here, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Statements can either be supported by verifiable third party sources or they can't. In this case, they can't. --Gene_poole 05:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are verifiable third party sources for the Principality, about which you said "The media reports serve only to verify the group's existence - not confirm its claims." You are, without doubt, exactly right. The only way that they can "confirm claims" is through international arbitration (assuming Tonga abides) or to fight a war over it. Minervan 14:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one verifiable third party source for the "Principality of Minerva", which tells us that some sort of entity, or person using that name exists. There is no way of verifying anything else at all about it. Even the "principality's" own website - which is the only other source of information - says nothing of value on the subject. There is no list of official contacts, no location details, postal address or phone numbers, no full names of alleged members and no photographs of alleged members and/or their aleged activities. This strongly suggests that the "principality" is largely ephemeral. --Gene_poole 22:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: Is it possible that islands have eroded away, so that they are just reefs like they were before 1972? I can't find Minerva on Google Earth and both the pictures at Minerva Reefs make it seem like the land is submerged at high tide. Chuckos 21:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they continue to emerge, both from artificial additions and from natural processes (which brought them above sea level in the first place, thus justifying Oliver's initial claims for a new nation, under International Law). Tripodics 18:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have photographic evidence in support of the above assertions? Exactly where are the "artificial additions" you make reference to? How does a largely-submerged reef "continue to emerge" from the ocean without the aid of either vulcanism or human intervention? How is it possible for a reef which is submerged at high tide to constitute a "new nation" ? --Gene_poole (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Erosion?

message: I have recently (August 2008) graduated from UC Irvine with a B.A. in History (emphasis on Economic and Revolutionary History) and minors in Political Science (emphasis on law and politics) and Art History (emphasis on propaganda). I've also interned in a Beverly Hills Law Firm, but that's enough about me. I have studied Minerva and found out that Tonga has violated the International Waters and Tropic of Capricorn UN Laws; although this didn't matter much in the 1970's, primarily due to the Cold War, such violations are criticized now, and it wouldn't be hard to prove that Tonga violated the post-WWII UN Charter to the UN, considering that Minerva is the only island owned by Tonga that's South of the Tropic of Capricorn. Furthermore the Tongan military attacked a civilian country center, forcing them to surrender at gunpoint, another violation that will be decried by the UN. Anyways, if someone is still checking this website let me know and contact me Ilya_7@yahoo.com 
Disclaimer: Since this is a discussion section, not the actual article, and since I am not seeking to profit here, this post cannot be regarded as SPAM according to the Wikipedia Rules.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.108.173 (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone still checking this website? 

message: Does this count as seasteading? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Seasteading" appears to be a proprietory term relating to floating concrete structures, so I'd contend that no, it doesn't. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seasteading? 

message: Does anyone think this article would be better with an appropriate map showing how close this reef is to all local countries?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.19.55 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram of position on globe 

message: I will follow up with this myself if no one else can assist, but the #2 reference here is now offline.  It's archived here https://web.archive.org/web/20130619043045/http://www.impel.com/liblib/NNLFAQ.html but I'm not sure of the correct citing procedure to update it & don't have time at the moment. JamesG5 (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure how to update this link 

message: País De Juca
•Língua Oficial= Português 
•Gentílico= Jucense
•Tipo de Governador= Monarquia 
•População= 1
•Capital do País= Larry 
•Moeda= Cruzeiro 
•Continente= América do Sul
Líder de Governador= Rei Junior 
Português
Larry 2804:D4B:9D55:9200:F41F:9825:ED76:AD59 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  País de Juca