Talk:Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads

message: I added the context from where this fictional story and its islands come from. They come from the tall tales of the CON man, Morton F. Meads. Meads even went to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 1955 and 1956 to try to legitimize his claim over the islands. Meads claimed that his father, Franklin Meads (son of British Captain of the Modeste, James George Meads) along with several other British and American compatriots, visited the Spratlys in 1914 to establish the so-called "Kingdom of Humanity" on "Meads Island." From which, as the grandson of Captain Meads, Morton Meads claims Franklin Meads passed onto him.
Morton Meads' story is notable because it motivated many others, Filipinos, Chinese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc., in advancing their own competitive claims. Meads was aware of the current events at the time. So, he jumped on the opportunity by repeatedly telling his so-called birthright story to others, which later caught the public's attention for the first time in local Manila newspapers in early 1955. XXXpinoy777 (talk) 20:00, 06 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Morton F. Meads, former U.S. Army Soldier

message: This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. -- BD2412 talk 22:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
The article title and the name on the flag do not match 92.10.30.67 (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD results

message: What is this nonsense doing in Wikipedia? It should be deleted. This is entirely fictional, invented by one person by the looks of it, see  88.110.205.9 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense

message: The text cited by Samuel Pyeatt Menefee casts serious doubt on any of this. As someone noted above, in view of the international importance of the South China Sea and its geopolitics, could this article be deleted as being without foundstion beyond the fantasies of some individuals who have made offerings here? Varnebank (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very dubious indeed 

message: This needs to wait- there have been a number of IP edits to this page to insert "fictional", "fantasy", etc. See what I've posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Humanity and the SSP report that's related to it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested PROD 

message: I don't think we have good enough sources to assert that this was a historical personage. A law article and a newspaper article are not good enough given that historians do not treat this as certain. The fact that the later Meads at the same time claimed nonsense about a so-called "Treaty of Southwark" should lead us to take all his claims with a ton of salt. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And there is no record for a James George Meads in the searchable database of British Navy personnel at the UK National Archive. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the Southwark bit from the website with the disclaimer? It wasn't mentioned in any of those sources I used. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the archive, I suspect this is him; the dates would line up fairly well. I don't know the scope of that part of the archives; I don't know how much of a service record they will indicate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity of James George Meads 

message: As per conversions above, I propose for the deletion of this page. PCommission (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: A tag has been placed on :Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
 This article should be deleted as everything about it is fictional, as per discussed in the Talk page. There no conclusive proof that such a state ever existed, outside of the fictional story that was created by a single person.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time. 
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the , or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  PCommission (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads]]

message: There is a huge lack of sources, high amount of speculations and no related wiki pages in this article. Also including no physical, archaeological or photo evidence.
88.230.232.98 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a hoax? 

message: It seems like a load of nonsense Nintentoad125 (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is litteraly anyone able to verify this 

message: So, i digged this page's history and it was created by User:Eequor back in July 2005, which means he may be the creator of this possible hoax. He ceased editing in 2006. I think we should investigate this user's edit history to see if he did other kinds of disruptive edits or hoaxes. Octagon758 (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found who possibly created this possible hoax 

message: A lot of questions have been raised on this talk page about whether or not this article is a hoax. So far, I have successfully verified three of the five sources and am satisfied this is not a hoax, so I have removed the maintenance tag. I'll also be filling in a little information. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Compassionate727 absence of evidence is not evidence of existence. Therefore either vague sources or saying "citation needed" to part of article that states there is no military tecords are evidence of existence of this entity. Cactus Ronin (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  please do not re-add the tag without bringing anything new to the table. As pointed out by  above, the sources cited in this article check out. Similarly, we don't need to entertain 's argument that a Wikipedian made this up in 2005 when we have reliable sources from 1996 discussing it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a hoax