Talk:Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

message: RE: this diff. 
Firstly, just to clear the air, my intention with this article is first to bring it into policy, and then get it deleted. I have read all the refs provided and it is clear to me that the GALKOTCSI was never a real micronation, nor a real secession movement. It was a political stunt, followed by a website. Almost all the refs trace back their content to the now defunct website www.gayandlesbiankingdom.com. 
As for the particular diff, it removed content referenced by one of the only peer-reviewed WP:RS in the article. That reference pretty clearly states that the whole thing was a parody. --Surturz (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gimmetoo: An archived version of www.gayandlesbiankingdom.com is not a "legit source" as per WP:USERGENERATED --Surturz (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really? Please point out specifically where in WP:USERGENERATED exludes self-published sources for supporting claims about themselves in articles about themselves? Also, please explain why you have previously removed this link from the article with the edit summary "Remove dead link" , which would seem potentially ambiguous and perhaps misleading, since it is and was a working link. Your removals from this article left some content without context; specifically, you removed mention of the date when stuff happened. Why have you undone those fixes? Gimmetoo (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:USERGENERATED #4 - there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity (purports to be a real "nation" with citizen inhabitants when clearly it is not), and #5 this article is currently based primarily on that source --Surturz (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seriously? #5 must be a joke because, since you have purged the article of most content and the source in question is not currently being used, the article is prima facie not based on that source. For #4, please state specifically and with positive evidence precisely why you question the "authenticity"; in your response please make explicitly clear what "authenticity" you are referring to - the "authenticity" of the micronation, the authenticity of the source, or something else. It seems to me likely that you have misunderstood the guideline to which you refer. Since you have removed verifiable content from the article "with a view to deletion", you might want to reconsider your editing philosophy. Gimmetoo (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look, you can go back and forth on this with me here on the talk page, or you can do some research and find some WP:RS refs for the content you want restored. The article as it currently stands is unverifiable to the point of deceptive and would be better off deleted. If you and User:Wnt want to try to salvage the article by copyediting and sourcing WP:V content, go right ahead. I'm happy with either of these outcomes: 1) we delete the article, or 2) the article is worth keeping. As for the archive of the defunct website of the "micronation", whether or not it is acceptable under WP policy, nothing is going to change the fact that it is not a high quality reference. I actually thought the google docs ref you removed was the best quality ref in the whole article, since it was an academic paper in a peer-reviewed journal. --Surturz (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have stated pretty clearly that you want to have this article deleted, and you have also made edits that removed veriable information under what appears to me to be inappropriate reasons. Perhaps you should correct the problems you have caused? A quick search for other refs finds National Geographic, and another article which even refers to the website linked here as the subject's website. And if you think whatever is on google docs is peer reviewed rather than self-published, then you don't cite it on google docs, you cite the peer reviewed non-google-docs publication it appeared in. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

text: (outdent)I don't particularly want the article deleted (the whole thing is pretty funny), I just think that it should be deleted. If you can improve it to the point where it warrants keeping, please go right ahead. Good on you for hunting down some refs. That uts.edu.au article is the same as the "google docs" link we were talking about, which, for the record, I re-used - some other editor put it in there and attributed it to google docs. I hadn't got around to formatting the ref properly. Have you actually read it? I can't believe any serious academic would write such a thing, but there you go. --Surturz (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where does it say Wikipedia doesn't cover political stunts?  If the press covers them, so should we.  If you can find a source that this is not a real micronation, then by all means, add it - that's a very basic piece of information to build up the article.  But we should not be deleting things based on OR, blog entries, and personal opinion that the article is unimportant, any more than we should be creating them that way. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem covering political stunts that are notable for having an enduring impact. This stunt didn't. As per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". If GALKOTCSI was sizeable then perhaps it would warrant inclusion as a notable society or club. It didn't change anything at the time, it didn't attract any members, and it didn't survive. This article only exists because some people like laughing at gay people. --Surturz (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I must have said a dozen times before, WP:NOTNEWS is always misused in deletion discussions.  Read the whole thing: it says breaking news should not be treated differently than other sources.  The "routine" "newsworthy items" they're talking about are obituaries, high school plays, band competitions... stuff that gets into a newspaper but isn't really something another newspaper would want to cover.  And I don't see this as laughing at gay people at all; I see this as covering a certain protest that got much more attention than the usual. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement with a view to deletion. 

message: In a scheme similar to Israel's right of return, a person is automatically granted permanent resident status and is immediately eligible for citizenship in the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands simply by being gay or lesbian. There is no visa requirement to visit the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands, but there is a requirement that visitors be gay or lesbian.
I think that this is not the real situation. I think you would need a visa from Australia to visit. I do not think that visitors must be gay or lesbian to visit. I assert that this text should be removed, despite the ref. --Surturz (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visa requirements 

message: I will remove the gay-news.com reference  because it is not an WP:RS. If you compare it with the defunct website's page  you will see that gay-news.com has simply lifted the article text from the Kingdom's website. The reference is no more reliable than the Kingdom's website i.e., gay-news.com has not done any additional research. --Surturz (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? It's an independent source. If it repeats quotes, that doesn't make the quotes less reliable. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dispute that, but it does also speak to WP:USERGENERATED #5 which says that an article on an organisation should not be primarily based on their own website. --Surturz (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I've referred it to: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#gay-news.com --Surturz (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting. You are in effect arguing that if an organization makes a press release, and some other organization repeats parts of that press release, that that repetition makes the second source unreliable. I'm challenging the repetition point specifically. A repetition may not add new information, but how can it be in-and-of-itself unreliable? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  this happens time and time again in Wikipedia. A primary source is considered unreliable but many secondary, tertiary sources who have repeated the 'fact' have been made the reference. Yendor of yinn (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay news reference 

message: Just in case you are wondering why I am working on deleting this article: read this message: "well, it's serious enough to maintain a wikipedia page [...] is there anyone interested in helping refugees get there from Uganda?" --Surturz (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a good argument.  This person, however confused, will be set straight sometime before he tries to get on a plane.  Though if he did arrive, who knows what would really happen?  I mean, here in the U.S. we have whole municipalities declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" to protect illegal immigrants - for all I know the GLKCSI has some such arrangement worked out with some Australian beach town to drum up tourism.  I'd need to see a reliable source say there's nobody living in the Kingdom and not just assume that something like this must fail without evidence.  And if you do find one, then you can put it in the article to warn such people, and not just hope that they interpret an absence of article as something meaningful. Wnt (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Your previous edits seem to possibly be bordering on disruptiveness - or possibly worse. Please stop. Don't destroy an article to get it deleted simply because you don't like it. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 07:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The more I look at this article it is really just the Coral Sea Islands Territory of Australia with some wishful thinking and fantasy thrown in. In reality this place is really part of Australia with arguably the only 'reputable' source about it being Wikipedia itself! I could have a chat with a friend on a bus about creating my own micronation, issuing a press release the next day and if a newspaper decided to publish it - A new Country is born! Yendor of yinn (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just in case 

message: Or some other basic 'country' stats 86.145.223.102 (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population? 

message: The template currently says that the national anthem is I Am What I Am; the body, in contrast, says it's Zadok the Priest. The gaykingdom.info page, cited from the Zadok entry, says both on different sections of the page (the general information page says it's Zadok, the history page says it's IAWIA). Does anyone know if there's a way to represent the apparent official uncertainty, other than just writing "I Am What I Am or Zadok the Priest, uncertainty exists" in the Anthem field -- perhaps something used for other countries with multiple anthems? dcd139 (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  National anthem 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723014935/http://www.gay-news.com/article04.php?sid=1012 to http://www.gay-news.com/article04.php?sid=1012
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821121314/http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/dimensions/externalterr/coral.htm to http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/dimensions/externalterr/coral.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to the country's Facebook page, the Kingdom has officially been dissolved. Though an IP was blocked for attempting to add this information because of incorrect formatting, this is notable and should be included on the page somehow. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissolution 

message: I just listened to a podcast about the kingdom and the podcasters specifically discussed this Wikipedia article. According to the edit history, the alleged founder, Matthew Briggs, was added during an editwar by probable vandals, see this diff and those before . I can't find the name mentioned in any sources before it was added to Wikipedia and it's also not mentioned by other people involved at the time . I'm removing the name, but if anyone has any sources (that don't ultimately lead to this Wikipedia article), they can add it again. Metrophil (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged founder