Talk:Micronation/Archive 2

message: * In 14th August 2005, while the Withdrawal of Israel from Gaza Strip, Arie Yitzhaki, an Israeli military historian, declared independence in his tiny settlement, Shirat Hayam (Sea's Poetry). Yitzhaky sent letters to the United Nation and the red cross and asked for ammunition from Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of Israel. He called himself The Temporary Chairman "until the election of the 2500 citizens" in his country, The Independent Jewish Authority in Gaza Beach. Four days after, he defended his country alone with a M-16 against IDF soldiers, but was evacuated after some hours.
* Moresnet, a tiny European mini-state of about 3.5 km² that existed from 1816 to 1919. Its two large neighbours couldn't agree on who should own it, deciding therefore to make it a neutral territory where both would share control equally. It was located some 7 km southwest of Aachen, directly south of where the borders of Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands intersect on the Vaalserberg.
*Republic of Talossa
*United Kingdom of Atlantis 
*Middle Korea What does anyone have aganist Middle Korea? I would like anyone that dosn't know what a micronation is to please get out of here! Don't be a hater! And leave my edits alone!
::You need to create a real account, and create a new section in the Talk page here (use the + tab at the top) to explain why Middle Korea is notable.  Sticking your note up here is not going to get you correct attention.  Georgewilliamherbert 08:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of suggested micronations removed from the article

message: Hey folks! ! !, I'm a mere anonymous member of the public and not a Wikipedia regular, but it seems wrong that "Gene Poole" removes something I carefully added the same day, without consulting anyone.  A long time ago in the middle of a big fight over "micronation" he deleted a reference to micropatrology, and I just put a new and accurate cross-reference in.  Here's the recent history yesterday:
 (cur) (last)  23:18, 21 August 2005 Gene Poole (remove reference to micropatrology - it is not a formal academic discipline)
 (cur) (last)  23:16, 21 August 2005 Gene Poole (add more NPOV reference to micropatrology)
 (cur) (last) 20:22, 21 August 2005 24.27.19.186 (restore micropatrology ref somehow lost in earlier "micronation" dispute) - this last was by me -
Gene Poole's statement that "it is not a formal academic discipline" seems totally irrelevant.  It was used as a word for the small-country and territory study (including nonacademic hobby study like "philately") in the 1970s and 1980s, including in Washington Post, NY Times, etc.  Then some masters and PhD theses were written using the term in the 1990's and on (so it's arguably becoming a bit "academic").  Why should its not being a formal academic discipline exclude it, since it's a useful specialized term that's been used for 30 years?  (Unlike "micronation" apparently, it excludes cyberfantasies and always excluded the fictional stuff.)  I can't spend the amount of time here to do a big debate, but it seems wrong to let this person dominate a subject and exclude accurate information due to pronounced zeal against whatever he is fighting against.  Micropatrology is a neutral word as far as I know.  I hope some more formidable Wikipedian than I can restore my cross references to micropatrology from Micronation in the proper way.
:The article was deleted in January 2006 as non-notable: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Micropatrology. Among the about 100 Google hits are apparently three groups, (1) "not found" replies by some dictionaries, (2) discussions in online forums about micronations, (3) Wikipedia. This is a rarely used neologism. -- Omniplex 06:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gene Poole

message: Um, one question I don't see has been answered is why, if the definition of 'micronation' applies only to fictional nations, are nations which once had real existence also included here? Shouldn't such be considered microstates, instead? - Mike Lorrey 19:05 1/27/05 EST
As far as I can see, the definition doesn't simply apply to fictional nations. In fact, entirely fictional nations seem to be a distinct minority here. The definition seems more concerned with a nation existing but remaining unrecognized. --Centauri 00:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that this message is months old, but I would like to note that the vast majority of micronations are fictional nations with no real life basis, and not simply a matter of unrecongition. -Bill3000 14:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: fictional nations

message: Looking at the Talk archive and the page History, it looks as though the person insisting on the inclusion of the template has disappeared.  If anyone who is actually involved in editing the page thinks that it should be replaced, then fine — but there didn't seeem to be much point leaving it there to disfigure the page.
By the way, if the anon. user who accused me of 'vandalism' for changing 'territory' for 'land' would like to explain instead of indulging in edit-summary insults (and 'retaliating' by editing my user page), we might get somewhere). Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:06, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the anon user isn't interested in discussion or politeness, only in insisting on an unexplained edit.  The difference concerns whether land that's part of a sovereign country, and that was in use by another country's military, is to be described as 'land' or as 'territory'.  I take the latter (and the dctionary backs me up here) to involve a political dimension that the former lacks, hence my preference for 'land'.  If there's an argument against that, I'd be happy to hear and consider it.  Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very likely that the "anonymous vandal" is the twice-banned abusive crank editor Wik, aka Gzornenplatz, who was the one responsible for slapping the spurious dispute notice on this page in the first place. His attempts at editing can now simply be reverted as a matter of course. --Gene_poole 21:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: This is (at least it tries) to be serious encyclopedia. You may try Uncyclopedia, perhaps you will feel better there. And please use four tildas ~~~~ to sign your comments. Pavel Vozenilek 16:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PoV template

message: Centauri, I'm curious to know why you think that Animal Farm is not a Micronation.  In the category of Exercises in fantasy or creative fiction, it is arguably the best known Micronation.  Certainly more so than any of the other examples we've noted. Bollar 13:58, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
"Animal Farm" is no more a micronation than "Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars", "Star Trek", "Harry Potter", "Alice in Wonderland", "Narnia" or any other imaginary realm in literature or creative fiction is a micronation. The definition and examples given suggest that the micronations listed are unique entities in their own right - created as specific self-sustaining projects - and not simply the imaginary settings for stories. There is a separate article on imaginary countries, and if anwhere, Animal Farm belongs there. The 2 concepts are distinct and are only indirectly related. --Centauri 03:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal Farm

message: Quite frankly, the handling of and fighting over the micronation article is one of the things that drains my patience for WP of late. It seems to me like the article is constantly whittled down to aggravatingly pendantic vagarity because a crop of people believe that in order for a government to receive their respect, it has to suck up to a larger or more powerful government sufficiently such that the larger government grants their holy magical nod of "recognition". (Which isn't independence, but hegemony.)
"Centauri is trying to add Atlantium" clearly isn't the whole story, as the refs you gave show. You state that C. is trying to add Atlantium to the article. Yes, that's true -- but partially true, as C. is also trying to add Sealand, New Utopia, Fusa, etc., for a total of 6 micronations. But instead, the opponents to this edit have zoomed-in on 1/6th of that list, insisting solely that it is an attempt to include only Atlantium, as part of a paragraph on an event that is both relevant and notable within the subject matter of the article topic. The virulence spent on this focus is quite clearly based on the unproven supposition that C. = GenePoole, a fiercely clung-to belief. What that crusade fails to realize that even if C. does = GenePoole, the addition of 6 micronation's names, listed as attendees of an event, doesn't constitute bias. Does it make sense to exclude one of the nations simply because the poster is affiliated with it? No, that would be counterproductive. Were the content added by someone not affiliated (check that -- not BELIEVED to be affiliated) with one of the listed groups, would there be nearly as fierce an objection to such content? I doubt it.
The position you and others take against inclusion of this kind of content -- and arguments against words like "representatives" which I find rather inexplicable -- illustrates an anti-micronation bias that permeates the ongoing battle over this article and related articles on the topic. If you're against the legitimacy of the subtantial inclusion of the topic itself, which seems to be the case, that's a matter for VFD. If the topic matter is fitting for inclusion, then the matter should be included, and included as fully to encyclopedic and contemporary completeness.
It's not like the world is going to crumble because individuals make noise over their miniature self-government projects and experiments. That doesn't mean they don't exist. They do exist, they have reached a certain level of notoriety thanks to the Internet (and a natural human desire for self-direction in a world where there is no available claimable territory to develop a geographic nation in -- besides, many major modern nations were built on the lands of existing cultures, so how can you compare legitimacy?), and an article covering the topic should not refuse to mention the manifestations and mechanics of that topic.
I was a little suprised (and frankly a little annoyed) to be asked for input on this, as I'm quite far removed from the issue nowadays to be worth bringing into the fold. But I'm afraid I don't support you this time, either. 
- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC) (edited on 20:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC))
::Thank you Keith D. Tyler. It is good to see someone finally articulating a rational viewpoint on this subject. --Centauri 06:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input.  This is why I messaged you; because you were opposed to the arbitration against George Cruickshank.  Whenever I get in a nasty argument like this, I want to get other points of view so that I can see things from a more neutral perspective.  I know this argument is frustrating for you; you can imagine how frustrated I am. Samboy 20:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open response to Samboy 

message: This is a poll about whether the bold part of the section below should be included in this article:
In August 2003 a summit of micronations took place in Helsinki at Finlandia Hall, the site of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). The summit was attended by delegations of the Principality of Sealand, the Kingdoms of Elgaland & Vargaland, NSK-State in Time, Ladonia, Transnational Republic, the State of Sabotage and by scholars from various academic institutions.
From 7 November through 17 December 2004, the Reg Vardy Gallery at the University of Sunderland (UK) hosted an exhibition on the subject of group identity and symbolism as they relate to micronations. The exhibition focused on numismatic, philatelic and vexillological artifacts, as well as other symbols and instruments created and used by a number of micronations from the 1950s through to the present day.
A "summit of micronations" hosted as part of the exhibition was attended by representatives of Sealand, Elgaland-Vargaland, New Utopia, Atlantium, Frestonia and Fusa and will feature in a 5-part BBC television documentary about micronations produced by Danny Wallace and scheduled to screen in the United Kingdom commencing in July 2005.
If you feel the bold part of this sentence should be included, vote yes; if not, vote no.  In order to minimize possible fraudulant votes, votes from IPs and from accounts created after July 1, 2005 will not be counted.  Please do not include discussion in the vote, include that in the section marked discussion.
YES The bolded part should be included in the article
# --Centauri 09:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll: Should be include "attended by representatives..." 

message: Does anyone else consider the Vatican a micronation? It fits many of the categories, but all of the micronations here are described as makeshift nations, and most of them are not even recognized. Does the Vatican not fit, or does it?
:The Vatican City State is recognised widely as a sovereign state. It is not a micronation. --Centauri 11:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  I added Vatican City as an example microstate at the top so people would not have this confusion. Samboy 22:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rome