Talk:Conch Republic

message: Someone removed the image of the Conch shell – too bad, I really liked it. This article was definitely livened up by the image, and perhaps we can keep it until we get permission to use the Conch republic flag? --Ilya 21:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: If I'm reading the article right, the Conch Republic only existed for one (1) minute. Is this correct? If so, it should be made explicit in the introduction. Otherwise, the duration of the country's existence should be mentioned in the intro. -Lommer | talk 23:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How long did it exist?

message: 1. I pulled the reqimage tag: someone's put up a conch flag for us already.
2. The Conch Republic still exists: they had merely "surrendered" to the U.S. 1 minute after the declaration.
History
Cwolfsheep 02:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existence & Image 

message: I removed the adjective "imaginary" from the lead paragraph. As it is an actual place, and the notion of a "Conch Republic" is based in actual historical events, this seems the wrong adjective to me. -- Infrogmation 13:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is neither imaginary nor proposed. I've rewritten the intro paragraph to more succinctly clarify this. --Gene_poole 22:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mock" is the proper adjective. Does anybody believe that their tongues were not firmly in their cheeks? They pretty much followed the script of The Mouse That Roared.--BillFlis 13:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, "mock" is good. But "...as a serious protest motivated by frustration over genuine concerns" just sounds too apologetic. I've removed that qualifier; the History section speaks for itself. Melchoir 22:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mock is fine with me.  --JW1805 (Talk) 03:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Imaginary"

message: :With the last series of edits, this article now contradicts itself:
"Unlike splinter groups such as the Republic of Texas, the Conch Republic has never formally declared its independence from the United States"
and
"as a form of protest Mayor Dennis Wardlow and the Council declared the independence of the Conch Republic"
:Someone who knows a bit more about the topic than I should fix this. MiraLuka 22:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think either the former sentence should go (what does it contribute, anyway?), or "formally declared" needs to be defined. I think GP is saying that while ROT have submitted documents of secession to the USG (see the ELs), Conch has not. Certainly ROT (all of them) takes itself more seriously than Conch; but this is a relative distinction, not an absolute one. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the ROT reference a while back.  The ROT is a real separatist group.  The "Conch Republic" is a tourism slogan.  To compare the degree of formality of their secessions from the Union is just silly. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you have a reason to arbitrarily argue that, other than your own opinion... - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It just isn't useful of meaningful to compare the two.  The Conch Republic was a mock secession protest (which is fully described in the article).  The ROT folks are real separatists.  It would be like saying in the article "Unlike the Iraq insurgency, the Conch Republic has never taken hostages."  I just don't see the point of such a comparison.  And comparing the degree of "formality" of the secession also doesn't really make much sense.  You could also say "Unlike South Carolina in the 1861, the Conch Republic did not hold a Secession Convention or a referendum on secession".  Of course they didn't, because one was real, and the other was fake.  --JW1805 (Talk) 18:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: The taxonomy of micronations is clear and unequivocal - they are entities which resemble sovereign states but are not. Claiming that in order for an entity to be a micronation it must be a "serious" secession is spurious original research, and is not borne out by historical reality or third party sources. The micronation article lists numerous examples of such "tongue in cheek" micronations, and the Conch Republic is certainly nothing special in that regard.
Furthermore, numerous third party sources identify the Conch Republic as a micronation, including Google, Best of the Web, Flags of the World, the  Micronations Page, the Unrecognised States Numismatic Society , the Etymology & the Virtual World and Expat World, to name a few.
Therefore, I've restored both the micronation infobox and references to the Conch Republic as a micronation to this article accordingly. --Gene_poole 00:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to argue that any number of authoritative sources accepted by most of the world (including Wikipedia) as being reliable and accurate are not reliable, or that the Conch Republic is somehow the sole historical exception to otherwise internationally accepted taxonomies and standards of nomenclature then please provide some evidence in support of this position. In other words, if you wish to argue that the accepted terminology for desribing unrecognised statelike entities is in fact "mock republic" rather than "micronation", then the onus is on you to come up with the evidence - and no, a couple of passing mentions desrcibing an event as opposed to the subject of the event in a couple of minor local newspapers does not constitute anything even remotely substantive in that regard. In the absence of evidence, or even of a cogent argument to that end I'm reverting to the last NPOV version of this article. This odd business of trying to stick unsubstantiated, POV original research into this article has gone on for long enough IMHO. --Gene_poole 04:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article currently says some call it a micronation. That's accurate, and certainly more NPOV than saying it IS a micronation even if no one who lives there calls it one. And please don't add back a silly box which says the entire population is part of a micronation of which the former mayor is Prime Minister. Jonathunder 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Conch Republic was declared as a tongue-in-cheek protest secession of the Florida Keys from the United States on April 23, 1982. It has been maintained as a tourist promotion since then, and is sometimes called a micronation.
It seems pretty NPOV to me.  It does say that it is called a micronation.  You keep accusing us to inserting POV and OR into the article...but I don't know what you are talking about.  If you would actually respond to my questions and concerns instead of making prouncements about how you are right and we are wrong, it would be better, I think.  And incidently, no, I don't consider eZines and obscure German websites to be as reputable as AP articles.   Interestingly, FOTW calls it a "short-lived micronation".  --JW1805 (Talk) 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far 3 editors have supported the retention of the infobox and 2 have not, so there is no consensus for it's continued removal by those supporting the minority view. Aside from which the 2 opposed to its inclusion have consistently failed to provide a cogent rationale for removing it, and one of those is now making allegations concerning the content of the infobox that is demonstrably wrong - possibly deliberately so - by stating that it contains information that is not actually there. I'm reverting accordingly. --Gene_poole 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: After reading the comment "Delete. I guess they can't all be the Conch Republic" in a VfD debate for a micronation, it's become clear that the Conch Republic is one of the most notable, biggest micronations out there in public reputation. If any articles should have that box, this should be one of them. Wiwaxia 05:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conch Republic = micronation

message: The additon of royal famy and Duke Brandon Angel have been removed as verification has not been provided and I can not find any. If some one can (find support for these claims)  please revert my removal.--blue520 06:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Famly 

message: Please do not make unilateral changes to the format of the micronation infobox without first reaching a consensus on the appropriate talk page. --Gene_poole 02:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is not incorrect, and the micronation infobox template is used currently on nearly 30 articles. Please don't make deliberately misleading statements to try to promote your POV original reasearch on this subject, particularly as there is a strong consensus opposing your changes. --Gene_poole 04:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is one and only one article that links to the template.  It is Lovely (micronation).  You are again acusing me of promoting POV.....what exactly are you talking about?  Please specifically indicate what you think I am doing that is POV.   Where is the consensus that the "Musical Anthem" of the Conch Republic is "tba"?  Where is the consensus that the area should be Key West only and not all the Keys?  It's difficult to work with you if you don't ever really respond to my concerns about the article content.--JW1805 (Talk) 05:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The box had a number of errors in it, compared with statements on the Conch website, which I've fixed. --Centauri 06:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Micronation infobox

message: There is a disputed tag on this article.  Exactly what is being disputed? RJFJR 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is disputed, although there is one user who keeps trying to make changes that are at odds with available reference sources. I'm removing the tag accordingly. --Centauri 21:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is disputed? 

message: At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious, the Conch Republic has existed for more than twenty years. It has never ceased existing. It is active, commercially and culturally in the present day. Historical events described at length in the article verify this. Many reputable independent reference sources verify this. Describing it in the past tense is factually incorrect. Continually reverting the article to a factually incorrect version constitutes article vandalism. Comprende? --Gene_poole 02:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys appear to be edit warring over "was" vs. "is". I suggest you both stop, as it's fairly lame to do that. Come to a compromise position that encompasses both points of view (that it was a joke, and that it still to this day has some reality). 3RR is not a license to get 2 reverts a day or whatever, it's the spirit that matters, and if I come back to this article and see more back and forths, that would not be a good thing. Hope this warning helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was vs is 

message: "The Conch Republic was an imaginary or not-generally-recognized nation or perhaps a micronation existing in the Florida Keys, after Key West and nearby islands seceded from the United States of America. "
Notice the word "was"?   -   Marc Averette 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude.  You can't use an older Wikipedia version as the source for a correction to the current version.  Please, get real.  Georgewilliamherbert 05:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you can use commercialized and biased rags like Lonely Planet?  Oh, I see.  The Conch Republic is a micronation.  It says so right next to the Denny's coupons.  Marc Averette 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please get over this.  The Micronation article contains defining explanations.  It's consistent and referenced.  The term is in widespread use.  Georgewilliamherbert 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  You loons are so easy to wind-up it almost isn't funny.  Almost.   Marc Averette 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that "you loons"  is a very useful comment to make. I'd like to see all parties to this thread work out their differernces amicably if at all possible. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is amicable?  "This is a foolish red herring argument promoted by ignoramuses. --Centauri 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I've given here is a warning hung on what appears to be the most recent bit of incivility, not a recounting of every piece of it I can find. There is plenty of incivility here, unfortunately, and what there should be though, is none. The right response to a civility warning is to be civil, not to say "But so and so is incivil too", as that's the defence we used in the schoolyard back before we matured and behaved as adults should. If I come back and find incivility continuing, I'll act on it. I do appreciate the reminder that more than one person might perhaps need a cooling off period though, and will make sure to spend time reviewing before I act, as I always do.  ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are you being so uncivil towards me?  You are taking my viewpoint as if it were a personal attack.  I'm only stating my viewpoints on this issue.  Your childish behavior and name calling is extremely unprofessional and only makes any valid points you may have look silly, similar to the rantings of a four year old who is in bad need of naptime.  -  Oh - and by the way, it's "you're more of a fool than I'd previously assumed".  It appears your tantrums are beginning to cloud your proper grammar.   -   Marc Averette 13:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Gene. I don't support the usage "Commercially biased rags" but I ALSO do not think " What stupendous arrogance!" is appropriate. Mark, " Your childish behavior and name calling" is not helping defuse the situation. I said if I turned up here again and saw continued incivility I would take action. Consider this a last warning, the collegiality of this discussion needs to increase. What I need all of you to do is be more civil, way more civil, than the other fellow, even if you think you've been unfairly provoked, please. I'd rather not hand out blocks for NPA but I will, and I'll paint with rather a broad brush. Oh, and I actually don't give two hoots about the controversy. I bet there's a wording you can come up with that recognises the controversy, presents the info cogently and completely, and lets the reader make up their own mind. Can you try to come up with that? That would be great. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that people need to start engaging in rational discussion here. I've established my position and provided a broader context and multiple reference sources supporting it. Despite days of to-ing and fro-ing, I'm still awaiting an appropriately referenced response from those promoting the alternative view. Somehow I suspect I'll be waiting a while. --Gene_poole 12:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Source

message: The edits that keep happening to the intro paragraph are nonsensical from introducing the Conch Republic as a micronation.  Please keep this consistent with other micronation articles.
Specifically regarding the sockpuppet allegations, many of the senior Wikipedia administrators who do sockpuppet checks know who I am.  I use my real name on my account, my information and location are verifyable.  I do not live in Australia, I live in California.  I do not operate a Micronation.  Centauri and I are not socks in any way, shape, or form.  If you don't take my word for it, please go to  and put in a Category E checkuser request for verifying that we are not the same person gaming 3RR.  If you are able to convince them that checking is worth their time, the answer will come back that Centauri and I are editing from locations which are roughly on the opposite side of the planet from each other.  The odds are high that they will simply reject your request as ridiculous, however.
I raised the Sock issue initially because of overlapping edit patterns of User:FairHair and User:Averette; those are now less evidently overlapping other than on this page.
Georgewilliamherbert 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph 

message: Conch Republic is a name applied to the Florida Keys.  It was first used during a mock protest secession of the Keys from the United States on April 23, 1982.  The term continues to be used as a tourism slogan, and has been used in Key West television commercials.  Key West celebrates Conch Republic Independence Day every April 23 as part of a week-long festival of activities involving numerous businesses in the city.  A Conch Republic website, which appears to be operated as a private business by "Secretary General" Peter Anderson, was set up in 1996.  The website issues souvenir passports, and claims that the Republic is an actual independent nation (see micronation). 
While these actions have been described by some as "tongue-in-cheek", they were motivated by frustrations over genuine concerns.  The original protest event was motivated by a U.S. Border Patrol roadblock and checkpoint which greatly inconvenienced residents and was detrimental to tourism in the area. Although the Conch Republic is not, and never was, a real secessionist movement, many in Key West continue to identify with the concerns that motivated the original protest against what they view as an "unresponsive" central government taking action without considering all of the implications. At least three related protests have taken place subsequent to the original incident.
==== What's wrong with it ====
# The name only applies to Key West, not the whole Keys.
# This is a micronation article, and not mentioning "micronation" until the last word of the last sentence is sort of ridiculous.
Georgewilliamherbert 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The disputed "improved" intro paragraph 

message: # The name only applies to Key West, not the whole Keys.
# This is a micronation article, and not mentioning "micronation" until the last word of the last sentence is sort of ridiculous.
Georgewilliamherbert 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with it 

message: Thanks for the superior editing job and clarification.   -   Marc Averette 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: the article is much better, now. Thanks, guys. Jonathunder 15:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You people have 2 choices - either stop your co-ordinated vandalism of this article - or come up with some reputable references to support your position that the Conch Republic is not a micronation, but a "name" - whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. --Gene_poole 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you really arguing that Conch Republic is not a name for the Keys? People use it even if they have no idea what a "micronation" is.--Cúchullain t/c 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There are plenty of sources to back this up.  Here is one:
*MOLLUSK'S RETURN IS KEY TO IMAGE OF FLORIDA'S CONCH REPUBLIC  "... the 110-mile island chain's nickname as the Conch Republic. ..." 
*The colorful `conch' republic is a quirky catchall of cultures  "... Travel feature on Key West, Florida, dubbed the "Conch Republic...."  This also calls attention to the fact that "Conch Republic" is also used as a nickname for Key West only.  This isn't clearly indicated in the article.  --JW1805 (Talk) 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the city, not the whole Keys. From the "Conch Republic" declaration of independence: "I proclaim that Key West shall now be known as the Conch Republic... We call upon the people of the Florida Keys to join us or not, as they see fit. ...people on a small island." 208.103.180.154 10:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That is specious reasoning. The Conch Republic is a micronation. This is not a matter of dispute. We are not here to decide if it is or not. It has been widely known as such for decades, and all reputable third party references dealing with the subject either specifically identify it as such, or use terminology which makes it clear that it is an ephemeral statelike entity - ie the very definition of a micronation. Saying that it's simply the "name" or "nickname" for the Florida Keys - while failing to acknowledge the very reason that that is so - constitutes vandalism by deliberate exclusion. --Gene_poole 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does explain where the name came from, in the second sentence! The word "micronation" is even used in both the infobox and in the first paragraph. I'm failing to understand your complaint.--Cúchullain t/c 02:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be looking at a different version from me in that case. The current version tacks the word "micronation" in parentheses onto the bottom of the introduction, instead of at the beginning, where it should be. After all, the only reason that the world at large knows about the Conch Republic at all is because it's a micronation - not because the Florida Keys use it as a "nickname". I think it's time we involved some external editors in this discussion. Everyone here is too tied up in their own agendas to conduct a rational discourse. I'll frame something appropriate when I get the time, and we can take it from there. --Gene_poole 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Averette. If it wasn't for Peter Andersen and his friends there would be no "nickname" in the first place. You should really look up the meaning of "cause and effect". The article is not "balanced"; it's wrong, and it will be changed in due course - your use of socks and Jonathunder's active encouragement of them  notwithstanding. --Gene_poole 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'm confused about who is a sockpuppet or whom.  I see that User:Centauri is a checkuser-proven sockpuppet of Gene_poole.  Is there evidence that FairHair and Averette are also the same person?  --JW1805 (Talk) 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're mistaken. There is no such "checkuser confirmation" about me, and according to your buddy Taxman, even if there was it would mean nothing. Apparently all that's needed to confirm a sock is vague suspicions and 2 people sharing the same opinion on 1 topic. On that basis the likelihood that Averette = Fairhair is 100%. --Gene_poole 03:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  At last, a version that makes sense. 

message: Trying to find some more references.  --JW1805 (Talk) 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your references show that various people have been "Prime Minister" and/or "Secretary General" of the Conch Republic since it was founded. Nothing new there. Doesn't change who the current incumbents are. The currency is Conch Dollars. They're well documented by numismatists. You can buy them on eBay. --Gene_poole 02:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some references

message: This is an attempt to resolve the longrunning dispute concerning the content of the introduction to this article.
One group of editors prefer this version:
Version 1:
The Conch Republic is a micronation declared as a tongue-in-cheek protest secession of the Florida Keys from the United States on April 23, 1982. It has been maintained as a tourism booster for the Florida Keys region until the present day.  
While the protest that sparked its creation, and others which have occurred periodically since then have been described by some as "tongue-in-cheek", they were motivated by frustrations over genuine concerns.  The original protest event was motivated by a U.S. Border Patrol roadblock and checkpoint which greatly inconvenienced residents and was detrimental to tourism in the area. 
Although the Conch Republic is not, and never was, a real secessionist movement, many in Key West continue to identify with the concerns that motivated the original protest against what they view as an "unresponsive" central government taking action without considering all of the implications. At least three related protests have taken place subsequent to the original incident.
The Conch Republic celebrates Independence Day every April 23 as part of a week-long festival of activities involving numerous businesses in Key West. The organization - which appears to be operated as a private business by its "Secretary General", Peter Anderson - is a key tourism booster for the area. It also issues its own souvenir passports and postage stamps (see cinderellas, stamp-like labels). 
Another group of editors prefer this (current) version:
Version 2:
Conch Republic is a name applied to the city of Key West. Beginning of the Conch Republic It was first used during a mock protest secession of the Keys from the United States on April 23, 1982.  The term continues to be used as a tourism slogan, and has been used in Key West television commercials.  Key West celebrates Conch Republic Independence Day every April 23 as part of a week-long festival of activities involving numerous businesses in the city.  A Conch Republic website, which appears to be operated as a private business by self-appointed "Secretary General" Peter Anderson, was set up in 1996.  The website issues souvenir passports, and claims that the Republic is an actual independent nation (see micronation). 
While these actions have been described by some as "tongue-in-cheek", they were motivated by frustrations over genuine concerns.  The original protest event was motivated by a U.S. Border Patrol roadblock and checkpoint which greatly inconvenienced residents and was detrimental to tourism in the area. Although the Conch Republic is not, and never was, a real secessionist movement, many in Key West continue to identify with the concerns that motivated the original protest against what they view as an "unresponsive" central government taking action without considering all of the implications. At least three related protests have taken place subsequent to the original incident.
Please indicate your personal preference below:
Version 1 should be used:
# Gene_poole 00:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll: [[Conch Republic]] Article introduction

message: Hi,
We have a bit of an argument in the Hebrew Wikipedia about how it is supposed to be pronounced.
According to Merriam-Webster, both conk and conch (with ch as in cheese) are possible.
How is this republic called by actual Americans? --Amir E. Aharoni 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to be from there.  People there pronounce it konk.  -   Marc Averette 02:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Due to the timing and edit patterns of editors , , and IP User , I am concluding that these three editors formed a set of sockpuppet accounts brought here for purposes of exceeding WP:3RR edit limits and create a false consensus.  This was posted to the Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents WP:ANI#WP:DUCK (or not) on Conch Republic and another experienced administrator has agreed with the conclusion.
I am taking the following actions:
# I am reverting the article back to the "micronation" version
# For the time being, User:Shanebb, User:CheckLips, User:68.115.107.3 and new IP editors will be treated as cooperating sockpuppets per WP:SOCK and the duck test.  Combined edits by all of these will be considered together for the purposes of determining if further three-revert policy violations occur on the article.
# Further disruptive edit-warring on the article itself will lead to further sanctions.
# Discussion on the talk page (that does not otherwise violate WP policy) is fine, but will be presumed to be the same person for all 3 accounts and any other new IP or newly created user accounts which join in.
Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the first person to argue against Conch being a micronation.  But you and CheckLips are also not the first time pairs or triplets of accounts showed up together, and in prior cases it turned out there were socks involved quite a bit.  They (and some independent people) accused myself and Gene Poole of being socks, too, though that failed rather badly (he's in Australia and I'm in California).  shrug.  Just slow down and use the talk page more.  Georgewilliamherbert 02:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent sockpuppetry 

message: My United States Coast Guard cutter pulled into Ket West last night, in response to tropical storm Noel. I was ordered by my captain to raise a Conch Republic flag in lieu of our normal State of Florida flag. As more cutters arrived through out the day it seems a concencious was made between all the cuttters in port to fly both the Conch Republic flag and our regular state flag. I'm a lowly seaman so not exactly in the position to ask questions, but I thought it was intresting and worth mentioning while there is a discussion of the current state of the Conch Republic.
- 70.223.44.250 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment is somewhat obscure. What does this mean? Are you saying that US Coastguard vessels not only routinely carry the Conch Republic flag on board, but also raise it with or instead of the Florida flag when making port at Key West? --Gene_poole 01:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the seaman was saying exactly what he or she wrote...They found it interesting when deployed to Key West they where ordered to fly the Conch Republic flag. If they were in a position to know what was ops normal for pulling into Key West then they obviously would have known better than thre captain who ordered them to fly both flags after seeing what other ships were doing. Obviously if a number of cutters pulling into port all have a Conch Republic flag onboard than its normal for cutters operateing in Florida to have such a flag onboard. - 74.173.24.147 (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you can't tell a joke when you read one. There is no Conch Republic. 68.192.21.209 (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh*, read your history. The Conch Republic is as real as Sealand. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The USCG and the Conch Republic

message: did he acctulay declare war? is it true? well a mini state vs  1 of the bigest military powers in the world...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.5.65 (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  war with the usa in 1 minute 

message: Recently on his show, he brought up Key West's "secession" as if it were a real event, apparently unaware that the Conch Republic is a parody. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a "parody" of sorts, but it was also a real event. It happened, for the reasons given; the purpose behind the happening is neither here nor there with regard to whether it was "real" or not. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sean Hannity 

message: I'm confused about the flag. I've been to the Conch Republic, and most (if not all) of the flags I saw flying there (as well as the flag I bought as a souvenir) did not have the "We seceded where others failed" motto on it, in its place was "April 23, 1982", the stars were somewhat different, and it had an "1836" (or something like that) in the bottom-left corner. Is the one currently used on this page official, or maybe they're both official, or... just, what's the deal with the flag? 97.96.65.123 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I got that wrong. My flag is not the one featured in the infobox at the top of this page, but it is identical to the one in the photograph near the bottom. But still, can someone explain the two different designs? 97.96.65.123 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: the first coin at  seems to be a commerative medallian celebrating a sesquicentennial of something, from 1972. Presuming it is not a "back-dated forgery," Key West has been calling itself Conch Republic for a long time. Should not this wp page make some reference to whatever happened then, instead of starting with 1982? 75.87.138.107 (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be that the term "Conch" as a nickname for inhabitants is that old. I would want to see some clearer and more reliable evidence that any notion of a "Conch Republic" goes back farther than our current sources indicate. DES (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1822? 

message: I suggest merging the content of Conch Republic national anthem into this page. it is relevant, and that page is really too small to be a separate article. DES (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me, unless there's a trove of information that can be reported on it as a separate entity. And then redirect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it's so small, and I don't think it could become much bigger. George8211 conversations 19:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: - MrX 02:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: Hi, it seems that all links to the Conch Republic are not working. --Golan's mom 12:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Conch Republic. 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/20071103064059/http://travellady.com/Issues/Issue79/79V-keywest.htm to http://travellady.com/Issues/Issue79/79V-keywest.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102113712/http://www.conchrepublic.com/history.htm to http://www.conchrepublic.com/history.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231223419/http://keysnews.com/node/8892 to http://keysnews.com/node/8892
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) 23:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: has repeatedly added an image of a purported coat of arms for the Conch Republic. I have not been able to find any reference to such a coat of arms existing, and the image on Commons that has been used has no incidication that is anything other than the invention of the user who uploaded the image. I have tried to remove the image because it is unsourced, and quite likely fictional, but 121.200.90.115 keeps adding it back. - Donald Albury 01:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purported coat of arms 

message: Since other micronation articles have a flag (Sealand, Hutt River, Wy, and Molossia all have one), and the flag seems to have some degree of use if the picture at the bottom of the page is any indicator, I feel like the flag should be readded to the article's infobox. I'm not sure if there was a bigger reason behind removing it that I wasn't able to find so I figured I'd ask here.
dh (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Conch Republic has no real existance. It originally was declared as a protest against the US government setting up a passport control point in the upper keys, but is now more like a meme, kept alive as a promotional stunt for tourists. There is no official body to authorize a design for a flag. The image of a flag that was in this article was created by a user and uploaded to commons as his own work. (Also note, that image was labeled as the flag of Key West, which is definitely wrong.) This is an encyclopedia, not a fantasy game. We have an article about the Conch Republic because it is notable as a meme, but it is not real, nor does it have the trappings of a real political entity. - Donald Albury 22:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the legitimacy of the Conch Republic (or any micronation for that matter), the apparent standard for articles on micronations is to include a flag in the infobox if one exists for it (again, other prominent micronations have flags and even seals included in their articles), and there is evidence of the flag actually being used in the real world in both an image shown in the article and in news footage of its "secession," so I don't see why it should be removed on the basis that the Conch Republic isn't "real" (I think most people would agree that all micronations aren't "real" to the extent of other countries) or that the flag is a user creation (which it seemingly isn't). Again, if there is some bigger reason I'm just missing feel free to correct me but as is it doesn't look there's much of a reason to exclude the flag. dh (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Flag?