Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek/Archive 1

message: If you have evidence that the Dominion of Melchizedek is real, then please give it here. The country's own web site does not count, since it could easily be faked. An example of a valid source would be a reputable news service. Meanwhile do not remove other people's valid and referenced contrbutions. Doing so is considered vandalism. DJ Clayworth 18:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: Should not have link to Hoaxes as this category states:
"To forestall edit wars, religions and religious figures are excluded from nomination for this category." 
Therefore because Melchisedek is based on the Bible and recognized by UN member state as ecclesiastical state, this reference must be removed. 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.121.47.161 (talk • contribs) on 17:22, 3 August 2005.
The link to hoaxes is justfied; the hoax is not the religion, but the alleged microstate. If someone were to post an article on a Baptist claim to Antarctica, it would fall under hoaxes. Septentrionalis 20:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But is it more notable as a hoax than as an ecclesiastical sovereignty — somewhere in the middle between "SMOM and the Vatican" sounds rather vague. The article needs to reflect how it is percieved outside of Wikipedia, this is key. This means balanced material and presnetation. El_C 11:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoax

message: I have reported a Vandalism in Progress for this page by: 208.57.91.27, 67.124.49.20, 63.164.145.85, and 68.121.47.161
for their repeated attempts to change this article to one with a POV. The user(s) have been warned many time, but they continue to change this page and Ecclesiastical state and Bokak Atoll to their POV. Shocktm 20:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
:This guy's been vandalizing for months at every chance.  Why is he still being only blocked for short periods of time? Jdavidb 16:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Melchizedech is an "ecclesiastical state", by which I assume you mean a formally consitituted hierarchical religious institution with the rights of sovereign state, why is there no reference to that religion on the Melchizedech website, or in any of the many press reports concerning this entity? Assuming it actually has one, is Melchizedech's religion registered as such for taxation purposes in any recognized jurisdiction anywhere in the world, how many adherents does it have, what is its structure and the titles of its officers, what are its beliefs and practises, and if so, where are the external sources that can be accessed to confirm this? --Centauri 03:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Washington Post article twice refers to the religion of the Dominion of Melchizedek.  Isn't that a major press report?
----------
Wikipedia policy extrapolates Wikipedia:Consensus outside its virtual space, to, for our purposes, formal political, scholarly, journalistic, etc. consesus. I challenge that the pro-DoM contributor is magnifying certain favourable sources, ones that fall very short of amounting to such a consensus here and elsewhere. We can't keep going around like this in circle. I wish for the pro-DoM editor to be more critical and reflective, wrt the above, review closely and adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. Thanks. El_C 23:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism in Progress 

message: The article attributes an opinion to the "United States Securities and Investment Commission". I can find the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, but not a U.S. Securities and Investment Commission. Can someone either give me a cite for the existence of the above organization, or change the name to correct name. In any case, given the confusion, a cite backing up the statement attributed to them would seem like a good idea. -- The Anome 07:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the web site: sec.gov and the last mention of Melchizedek by that organization is found at:
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17054.htmJohnski 07:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I note that you posted a link that does not directly support the statement given. However, I think you'll find that   says "In fact, the Dominion of Melchizedek does not exist." -- The Anome 07:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to the correct reference where "non-existent" is stated. --Gene_poole 07:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the link you've listed is that that was only the summary of the complaint, and as you know a complaint only states what the person (SEC agent) bringing the lawsuit believes will be true at the conclusion, or wishes to prove.  The judgment or outcome of a lawsuit is far more significant, and the complaint itself has really no legal significance.  So, after the SEC investigated they came to a different conclusion that when they began their suit at law.  So the fact that they changed their tune in the conclusion of the matter is significant, so it really doesn't matter what they assumed before doing their depositions.Johnski 02:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "United States Securities and Investment Commission" 

message: Please do not revert these pages. There is no consensus on that page or this one. If you aren't willing to work together, then I will be happy to hault all discussion on consensus and this page. Davidpdx 07:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecclesiastical state/Government, Bokak Atoll pages