Talk:Micronation

Please keep in mind the rules about personal attacks have recently changed. In particular, check out Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. Samboy 23:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Old discussion moved to

• Talk:Micronation/Archive1 by Samboy 23:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Talk:Micronation/Archive2 by Infrogmation 00:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Micronation/Archive3 by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Micronation," a neologism (and a bad one at that)?

Once "Micronation" and "Microstate" were roughly synonymous. "Micro" denotes smallness not dubiousness or bogusness. The subject of this page is not "small nations," per se, but putative, aspirational, hoax, or imaginary states of any size. Their size is mainly limited by certain psychological factors. "Micronation" only recently acquired this instant use widely on the internet--mainly since 2002 or so. There is a cite to Wallechinsky & Wallace "People's Almanac" which is hardly scholarly, but it was printed. Excepting that case, is there any reliable source that uses it this way and is not based on random internet material? It seems to me that an article on hoax and imaginary nations is warranted, as is an article on putative sates, like Transnistria, and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. The fact that it may be disputed which article Sealand should lie under illustrates the utility of the distinction, not any weakness in it. As it is, the article is filled with gooey novelty and is rather unencyclopedic. It masquerades as an article about a topic, but it is really just a collage of material that rightly belongs in different articles. This all comes back to the fact that "Micronation" is now a chimeric term that has come to mean exactly whatever the Wikipedia article on "Micronation" says it means, and nothing more--and that is changing by the minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.128.71 (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Types of Micronations

I've added a section entitled 'types of Mmicronations' to explain about the diferent forms which micronations take. I think this section is relevant and contains some useful information, but I know micronations on wikipedia is somewhat of a sensitive matter. I ask for a discussion before merely deleting it as so often happens, because if you feel the need for it to go, I would like to see what other people have got to say. I belive it is an important subject for micronations and wish for it to remain, but if anyone else things it is irelevant, please say so here. Kentynet (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Your section looks like original research, please add some references, or this section will be deleted. --Yopie 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Mirage Islands

Someone converted a stub on the "Republic of Mirage Islands" into a redirect that points here. However, there is no mention made of it in the article. Would someone here who knows what category it belongs to add it? TIA, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirect. I can't find any verifiable evidence from any reliable source that this exists, other than the information given on the website linked in the article. Werrington Downs, the location given for their "consulate", is landlocked, and the website does not give any location for the islands themselves, so I think WP:WEB applies, unless there is some external evidence that this is more than just a website. I've now put it up for AfD. -- The Anome 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who redirected. I couldn't find any sources either, but I guess I was being cautious. Deletion is probably a better course of action. PubliusFL 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to place it in the "fraudulent" subsection of this article? Askari Mark (Talk) 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually bought a strange single-face coin from this micronation recently, so I know it definitely "exists". The last time I looked at their website they had also published a street address in the far western suburbs of Sydney as their "embassy" - but I've not yet been able to verify this with a drive-by. I suspect it's probably largely the product of some teenager's over-active imagination. --Gene_poole 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an impulsive comment, we should give user Askari Mark, a chance to prove the nations claims. Sloveniaiscool 17:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Askari Mark doesn't support the nation's claims. In fact, he voted to delete the article in question. PubliusFL 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PubliusFL is correct, I am not a proponent. I help wikify Dead-end pages and when I came across Republic of Mirage Islands, I deemed that it was unsuited to be a Wikipedia article in its own right. However, I was unsure whether it might be appropriate to merge into this article, if only to include it as one of the frauds as an aid to readers. I feel the editors active here would be a better judge of that than I. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloveniaiscool is just trolling again. Best to ignore him. --Gene_poole 12:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User Gene Poole is just being negative again, how is giving someone time to show valid sources trolling? Sloveniaiscool 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Legitimacy

A micro-nation meets the requirements of the Monte Video Accord. It is biased to place the sentence that micronations do not meet the requirements and may, therefore, not be a nation.

I also do not understand how it does not meet said requirements.

Wikifriendawesome 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Montevideo Convention you're referring to is just that - a convention. It's merely one way of defining what a sovereign state is and isn't. In any case, no micronation unequivocally meets the terms of the Montevideo Convention, and no micronation has bilateral relations with any established sovereign state. If it did it would no longer be a micronation. --Gene_poole 21:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that the Montevideo convention only says that a nation requires the capacity to enter into relations with other states, not that it must be in a relation with other states. Besides, what about micronations that have relations with other micronations? Assuming each of the participating micronations fits the other criteria (territory, population, government), why would they not be states, since they would then fit all the requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FutureDragon (talk • contribs) 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Successful Microstates

Could we list some successful microstates? Examples might include Israel and other aspirational states which were successful in getting independence. --MacRusgail 15:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Every single real country was without exception, at some point, a gleam in someone's eye - in effect, a microstate. Your index of successful microstates can therefore be found at list of real countries. If you mean a list of such states in modern living memory, I'm not sure those aren't better discussed as political movements rather than microstates. Rhialto 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I like Bill Bryson's comment "A language is a dialect with an army." The same could probably be said of the difference between a state and a microstate. ElizaBarrington (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Seborga

The inclusion of Seborga amoung historical anomalies is wrong, because it is a normal municipality of Italy. I'm graduated in History and NEVER heard about it before these days. The "document" cited by micronationals as the ancient base for their claim is a fake, or, better, it doesn't exist. I wrote to their official site asking WHERE this document is, planning to ask the permission to examine it, if existing, but they simply ignored my mail. By the way, the "principality" attracted a lot of tourists, expecially from abroad (the few Italians knowning about only laugh at it), which means it was a good tourist-call. The so-called "prince", a retired hand in agriculture, is often around places attended by tourists, expecially Sanremo, trying to call attention. Recently, I heard that a business man involved in the project of Gemini Islands micronation (really, Gemini Islands are only two reefs on Elba Island, where a natural park has to be established)is involved in Seborga, too. I recommend to move this voice to the one about micronations created fo some specifical purpose (in this case: tourist-calling). If some of you knows WHERE this "ancient document" is, please let me know. I'll read this discussion for news. Valerio from Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.118.40 (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What "ancient document" are you referring to? Seborga has never, to my knowledge, claimed that its alleged legitimacy is based on any "ancient document". --Gene_poole 11:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He may be referring to the fact that Seborga was not accounted for in the Congress of Vienna, or the Act of Unification of Italy 1912, a fact upon which it bases its claims for independence. Neither of these, however, are ancient. Izax143 (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

differentiation

Hi, we should distinguish between two things:

1. Micronations in terms of small states which are not accepted as states but are real existing

1. Virtual states in terms of communities or role-play-games in the internet.

Although they sometimes use the same word "micronation", they are to completly different things and should be treated in two different articles.

--JazzmanDE 02:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not different things. Micronations do not neccesarily have to exist in the real world and can be purely internet based, as many are. Izax143 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

But there is a fair amount of difference between a nation that for all intents and purposes exists, but has no recognition by say the UN, from a micronation of one person, from a micronation of sevearl dozen of more people from a micronation that actually seeks to become a real nation. The article seems to lump them all into the "eccentric" one man nation category in the summary at the beginning. Tonerman (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JazzmanDE and with some of Tonerman's comments, and I'd like to offer why. As the page stands now, "micronation" is differentiated from "imaginary countries" by their staked claim(s), whether recognized or not by whomever, to actual physical territory extended in 3D space. Internet "nations/countries/etc." do not fit this definition and should therefore be placed into an altogether different category given this important distinction. Further, it appears that the conflation is maintained at the expense of trivializing palpable micronations and maintaining a vague boundary between them and virtual ones, but really there should be a clear delineation even by the definitions as they are so far provided on the page. Aestheticvalidity (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Include pop culture links?

Based on the examples presented in Australia and elsewhere, a great example in pop culture can be found in Petoria from Famliy Guy. Goodnight3455 15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that Petoria was mentioned in this article at one point. I'm fairly certain there are enough general cultural references to micronations to justify the addition of such a section. --Gene_poole 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The new Bethesday game, Fallout 3, for xbox 360 features a democratic micronation called "The Republic of Dave". The republic of Dave seems to be an exercise in self-aggrandizement by the self-elected president, Dave. There are regular elections, but Dave is the only candidate. The children are educated, but only in a fictional heroic history of President Dave. Dave himself seems to take all women of age as his wives. The player can convince various citizens to oppose Dave in the next election, and then rig the election so that Dave loses. After losing, Dave leaves The Republic of Dave to start yet another micronation in the ruins of a city, where he is the only citizen. It is suggested that the citizens of the Republic of Dave are much better off after his departure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.137.200 (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Duchy of Bohemia

An apparent SPA keeps adding this micronation to the article, with no source other than the micronation's own web site. Is anyone aware of any independent reliable sources to verify the notability of this micronation? PubliusFL (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to stake my life on the likelihood that there is no such source. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I´m from Bohemia and I never hear of it. Yopie 23:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Peaceland

I added ′′Peaceland ′′ in the activist states. It´s notable, because was cited in official Czech press agency, Russian press agency and in Czech main news page. Probably it is same as Waveland.Yopie 23:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks like Waveland v2.0. Good find! PubliusFL (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Forvik

Here's another: the 2.5 acre island of Forvik Should it be included? You decide, I'm just a visitor. –TS

got coverage on The News Quiz, but that's about it so far! Not sure it's notable enough yet.ninety:one 21:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the Reuters coverage cited above, there's this article in The Guardian and a few other news articles. I think it might merit a mention. PubliusFL (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganising the page

Here is a plan on how I would reorganise this article. This should cut down on the amount of sections.

--> Introduction

--> Definition

--> History

---> Early history

---> 1960-1980

---> Australian developments

---> Effects of the internet

--> Categories

---> Social, economic, or political simulations

---> Exercises in personal entertainment or self-aggrandisement

---> Exercises in fantasy or creative fiction

---> Vehicles for agenda promotion

---> Entities created for allegedly fraudulent purposes

---> Historical anomalies and aspirant states

---> New-country projects

--> Legitimacy (See also: constitutive theory of statehood and declarative theory of statehood)

--> Academic, literary and media attention

--> Micronational currencies (See also: List of micronational currency systems)

--> Gallery

--> See also

--> References

--> External Links

We also need some more images, particularly photographs of the micronations and micronational currency. I own quite a few stamps, coins and banknotes from micronations which I can scan and add to Wikipedia. Also, we only need a few examples per category, this isn't the list of micronations. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 08:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please, this great change need be discussed with others contributors, all deleted micronations must be moved to list of micronations or can be created new articles. --Yopie 15:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

They are examples, which means that we only need a few (3,4 or 5) to represent each category. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have moved all the deleted micronation to the list of micronations talk page so we can simultaneously improve this article and keep all the information on the deleted micronations available. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Don't edit my words in talk. --Yopie 22:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Words? - I never edited any of your words. You mean those bullet points? They're not words, they're not even supposed to be here, please read WP:TP on how to reply to comments. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation from [page guidelines]: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.".--Yopie 18:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you please point out where I struck out your comments? You have still failed to explain how I edited your words, and now you say that I struck them out? So please explain to me why anybody would strike out words which they changed to favor their argument, and how bullet points are "words".

As I said, I'm not going to change it back, even though I have explained several times why bullet points aren't used. This is my last comment on the matter. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

adding references

I just happened to read this article today. It is really interesting but it looks like it needs more references. May I get started on that? I am a newbie so I won't make any edits in the article itself (other than the references) and I would be happy to hear suggestions or to help out any other way also.aharon42 (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. This article definitely needs some improvement, especially with references. Edit the article itself if you think any mistakes need to be corrected, and if you are interested in micronations you can join our WikiProject here: WP:MICRON. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Micro cover.jpg

The image Image:Micro cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

North Dumpling Island

Eccentric inventor Dean Kamen declared the independence of North Dumpling Island and signed a non-aggression treaty (albeit tongue-in-cheek) with US President George Bush Snr. Surely this is at least noteworthy. 210.50.142.164 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Ian Ison

Sure... show us a reliable source to prove this claim... - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

North Dumpling does exist, it's in Lonely Planet. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Principality of Dubeldeka

This is a micronation near to Mittagong/Bowral in NSW, Australia, that I have visited. There is one news article on the web, http://bowral.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/lodge-secedes-to-form-new-country/270714.aspx However this is not deemed as being notable by Yopie. I have now scanned two news articles that were faxed to me from Dubeldeka, a passport and the back of an envelope with a crest on it. The scanned images can e viewed in this on-line photo album: http://s719.photobucket.com/albums/ww198/wikispecial/.

What more needs to be done so that Dubeldeka can be included in the "Australian Developments" section.

PS do not undo these edits. they are done by "140.247.85.118" from another location. 140.247.85.118 (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As there were no more comments I went ahead and inserted the entry again. If there are reasons to remove the entry, can we please discuss it here in detail. 140.247.85.118 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• 1. This is talk page. not chat, so newest talk must be in bottom of the page, not somewhere in the middle. So I moved your talk to right place.

2. Micronations mentioned in article Micronation are as examples, for all notable micronations see List of Micronations.

3. Principality of Dulbeka isn't notable, coverage in local newspaper isn't reliable (see WP:RS) Take a look on references in List_of_micronations, as references are used The Times, one book from Lonely Planet, New York Tribune etc. --Yopie 09:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yopie: Thanks for moving this section to the right place. Is there any point trying to insert it into the List of Micronations as you suggested in your edit of the micronation page, or is someone going to do the same thing that you did here? 140.247.85.118 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Montevideo definition

The Montevideo definition of statehood is not universally accepted. The Westphalian definition (named after the Westphalian treaties of 1648) requires international recognition. A state only exists in coherence with other states. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove "Micronation#Categories" section, and differentiate List of Micronations

If there are no objections, I am going to remove this section of the article, which breaks micronations down by type. However, instead of getting rid of the content, am simply going to add the categorization of micronations to the List of micronations article. No need to have both the section and the list. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical anomalies and aspirant states

Would there be any objection to moving the section Micronation#Historical_anomalies_and_aspirant_states to the Microstate article? Hiberniantears (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Link farm

I removed from the article a link farm of external links. In that edit summary I said I was moving them here. As I was in the process of pasting them in, it became obvious that most clearly did not meet WP:OR. These might. Please discuss and return will be based on whether community consensus supports inclusion in the article.

• Micronations.net — Online micronational portal and resources
• The Micronations Wikia aka MicroWiki

• • Please stop deleting valid external links wholesale! You are deleting reference sources from reputable publishers (Lonely Planet), registered numismatic organisations, researched and thoroughly referenced university papers and websites that are referenced in print media articles, among other things!. --124.171.250.69 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Also, the the majority of the links being deleted seem to be in perfect conformance with WP:EL, so I can't see how 'original research' enters into it at all, really. --124.171.250.69 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they do not meet the requirements. "#2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting. " for one thing. As the person wishing to include them it is your responsibility to convince the community that each site has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with User:TheRedPenOfDoom on this one. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

By deleting these links in a wholesale manner, without rational justification you are engaging in vandalism. If you wish to suggest that Lonely Planet is unreliable, the burden of proof lies with you. If you wish to suggest that a widely referenced (including by Lonely Planet) university paper written by an accepted authority on this subject who has been interviewed in nationally-televised programming, and which includes a list of citations longer than your arm is unreliable, the burden of proof lies with you. If you wish to suggest that the website of a coin club specialising in this field affliated with the American Numismatic Association, and whose site is used as a reference by Krause Publications (the world's leading numismatic publisher) is unrelable, the burden of proof lies with you. If you wish to sugest that a coin and stamp archive site referenced by multiple press articles is unreliable, the burden of proof lies with you. If you wish to suggest that online discussion websites about micronations are somehow misleading or not relevant to this article, the burden of proof lies with you. I eagerly await your multiple proofs. If your proofs are not forthcoming, I will restore the relevant content, and trust that you will not vandalise it again. --124.170.58.216 (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of most of the sources was just the first reason; for example the links to stamp and coin collecting sites are not about "Micronations" but about "Collecting stamps of micornaitons" and "collecting coins about micronations" per ELNO #13 "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject."

Online discussion site fail ELNO #10 "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists."

And "wholesale deletion" of inappropriate matter does not require your approval nor does it count as vandalism. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is specious. You are now trying to justify your actions by arguing for the blanking of links to general sites on the basis that they are too general, and specific sites on the basis that they are too specific. I continue to await some rational proofs from you. --124.170.58.216 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You have clearly misread, the WP:BURDEN is on the person wishing to add or return content.

Microcation coins are not micronations. It is quite likely that you would be able to find reliable sources to create an article specifically about coin collecting for micronations and you would be able to argue for inclusion of that site on the article about micronation coin collecting, but it is not a valid link at this article.

I have started a section below for discussing the Lonely Planet site. I suggest the most productive way to move forward is for you to create similar sections for particular links giving your rationale for inclusion to see where the community consensus lies.-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarise yourself with your policy. It refers specifically to SOURCES referenced within the body of an article - not EXTERNAL LINKS. It is misleading to deliberately confuse the two. YOU are the one proposing the outlandish non-mainstream position that a number of reliable, commonly-cited, topic-specific sources that are accepted by most people familiar with this subject as being reliable and topic-specific, are all somehow NOT reliable or topic specific just because YOU say so. The burden of proof therefore lies with YOU to justify your outlandish non-mainstream position - NOT on me to DISprove the outlandish non-mainstream position you have chosen to attempt to promote. And recruiting buddies to support your crusade is not something I'd recommend. --124.170.58.216 (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss particular links, please start appropriate sections below. This, however has devolved into a rant and will lead nowhere productive. Good night.-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to engage in productive discussion and/or editing of this article I suggest you provide proofs to support your position, as I have already repeatedly asked you to do. If you continue to fail to justify your position within a reasonable timeframe, it is my intention to restore all relevant links to the article. Your behaviour here suggests that you are attempting to devalue and degrade the subject by removing an entire slab of topic-specific external links - including a range of reliable third party reference sources - which serve to enhance the content of the main body of the article and provide casual readers with the means of seeking out additional information on the subject, should they wish to learn more - which of course is the purpose of having external links in wikipedia articles in the first place. This suggestion is lent further weight by the fact that you are attempting to justify your actions with highly selective, subjective mis-readings of policy, combined with a range of personal assumptions that are factually incorrect. I strongly suggest you review your position and modify your editing behavior to address these perceptions. --124.170.58.216 (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you want to continue the battle I will refer you again to our guideline on external links, the second paragraph: "Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." (emph added)

You need to provide the justification for each link.

And WP:BURDEN is part of verification which is "is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." (emph added) As a content policy it applies to all content of the article, not simply that which is used for citations.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Having reviewed the list, I can't see any reason to restore those links. None of them appear to serve any express purpose that cannot be better achieved through the improvement of the article itself. In fact, many seem only indirectly relevant. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Simon Sellers - Lonely Planet author's personal site as external links

An editor has suggested that the following links meet our guidelines for external links and would be valuable additions to the article (see above). Please discuss. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Micronations: An Introduction — Overview of the Micronation Phenomenon, taken from 'Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations'.
• Believe, and Be Happy: An Interview with John Ryan, George Dunford & Simon Sellars — Interview with the authors of 'Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations', featuring a discussion of micronational concepts and their real-world importance.

discussion of Simon Sellers links

Currently, the links appear to be down, which is not a good sign that the links meet ELNO #16 "Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time." -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be mistaken. The numerous relevant links on Simon Sellars' site appear to be working just fine. --124.170.58.216 (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, the link above does work, but it fails WP:ELNO #5 "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," - its a webpage of the guy pimping his book. The book itself appears to have been published by a reputable press and so citing relevant content in the article to the book would appear to be appropriate (per WP:EL "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it"), but as a stand alone external link, no.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty certain these 124.170.58.xx IP's are just User:Gene_Poole. Not sure why he doesn't want to use his user ID any longer, as it hasn't been blocked for months. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It passes WP:ELNO. #5 "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," Note emphasis. The site does not primarily exist to sell a product or service. It's primarily a personal website by a published author, one page of which discusses one of the books he's contributed to. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The web site may be a personal blog, which are always iffy inclusions under WP:EL anyway, but the 2 ofthe first three items on the web page are links to "buy from Amazon" and "buy from Amazon.UK" Clearly this is _page_ is intended to be commercial promotion. Besides, if the book itself does not conatain any valid information that we would use as a source for content in the article, why would we include it in an external link?-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning is unsound. The website does not exist primarily to sell products or services. --203.166.245.85 (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

removed Goust

I removed Goust from the Historical Anomalies section. In my opinion (and it really is simply an opinion) the section should only include current, active claims because a) otherwise, the list will become very long (esp. in medieval times with thousands of smaller states and independence-claims it can get extremely messy) and b) wikipedia already has a List of historical unrecognized countries. Comments/opinions? Seb az86556 (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning - anything current or past, existant or long dead, that is identified by a reliable source as a "micronation" would be appropriate content for the article. However, I do not object to the removal at this time as it had no source calling it a "micronation" -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.Seb az86556 (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

sources problems

I added a line into the article stating that Merriam Webster's does not give any definition for the term "micronation." Said line was promptly deleted as "irrelevant, MW is not ultimate arbitor of words." I have no objection to my wording's being deleted, but I do think we should at least somehow mention the fact that (to my knowledge) no major, traditional reference source even seems to know about the term. Isn't that worth mentioning in some fashion? Seb az86556 (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, would US Native American "Indian Reservations? be considred Micronations?

The article did not address. If US American Native "Indian" reservations could be considred "Micronations(Microstates?) In California and other US States many Indian Resrvations have Gambling Casinos even there own Police forces.Outside of the local Police forces. Thanks(dated By the Emperor of Nova California,Day PM Tu.Sept.8,2009 21stcent. Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC>)Merci'!ANDREMOI (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say No, for a simple reason: By definition, micronations are unofficial. If a group of Choctaw were to go to ancestral lands in Mississippi and declare themselves to be a new Choctaw country, that would be a micronation. The reservation in Oklahoma, however, is recognized by the United States as an autonomous jurisdiction; it is not a micronation. In a similar vein, the "homelands" created in South Africa during apartheid would not have been considered micronations, as these territories had a recongized status. TechBear (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Further, small countries are not considered micronations. In some situations, such as city states, they are often referenced as microstates. However, at the end of the day, a country is a country, and a micronation is neither a country, nor a nation... large or small. A micronation is just a term for an organization of people who raise public awareness for something (whether it be their coin selling business, a fraudulent scheme to steal money, or a political cause) by creating a fake country for the sake of attracting some free media to to their cause. This is one of the main reasons that so few dictionaries define the word micronation, as very few people can even agree on what constitutes such a thing. Regardless of what a micronation actually is... it most certainly is nothing like a country. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Micronation Day?

is there a Micronation Day to recognze the status of theses "nations"? Article did not say.Thanks(dated AMSnOct18,200921stCent.)DREDSONANDREJOHNSON (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)DDULC

Not that I heard of Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particluar reason for the ultiple accounts? (e.g. ANDREMOI (talk · contribs) above, and then this one a month later...) - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A-ha... I see this is an ongoing sock problem, Andreisme (talk · contribs)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of a Micronation Day, but some micronations celebrate Norton Day on January 8. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 01:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Heard theres a new Micronations Day Every First of Winter?

Hear theres a New Micronations Day every First Day of Winter Dec.21st?NewImpAndre (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of it. --Terminator484 (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Country of World Peace

The Global Country of World Peace was declared by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in 2000 to be a "country without borders for peace loving people everywhere". It has a capital (Vlodrop, The Netherlands, or Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa), a king and prime minister, local administrators across the world, a flag, and a currency (RAAM). At one point they tried, unsuccessfully, to lease land for a "Vatican-like sovereign city-state". They have built dozens of Peace Palaces and towers of invincibility in numerous countries. It is not, strictly speaking, a "micronation" because it does not claim any sovereign territory. However it has much more infrastructure than an imaginary nation. Would it be a suitable entry in this article?   Will Beback  talk  09:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Another detail is that the GCWP made several serious attempts to buy or lease land for a sovereign nation. See Global Country of World Peace#Efforts to obtain sovereignty. While it's not an exact fit, the closest category among those listed on this article seems to be "New-country projects". I'll put in some text there and if anyone has a better idea we can move it.   Will Beback  talk  05:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The addition was reverted. I asked the editor why and he said it is not a micronation and it if it is then it belongs in List of micronations.[1] I don't see the logic of that, or how the list is different from the lists here. This article includes several proposed micronations, so the lack of true sovereignty doesn't seem to be a cause for exclusion. I'd like to get input on how to best cover this issue.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no further input, I'll restore the material.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think putting it in the list is important for such an organisation as long as it has notable third party resource to back it up --Sukehisashi (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sealand/Conch Republic/Molossia

Why are Sealand, the Conch Republic, and the Republic of Molossia included? They aren't micronations, because all three are recognized by at least one macronation: the Conch Republic and Molossia by the United States, Sealand by Great Britain and Germany. --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

no they're not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

They've just been acknowledged. 97.96.65.108 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think including them is considered important information for micronation --Sukehisashi (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Any acknowledgement would necessarily have a reliable source one could post a reference for. Please post the references. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

i dont know about the rest but sealand's claims of recognition are bassed off the fact that germany sent people the get them to stop holding some people prisoner who had tried to invade sealnad, and britain is only claimed because they backed off after they were shot at for trying to fix a buoy. theres no real recognition, like a embassy. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

UTSH

A decision has come up about discussing whether or not to include micronation organisation UTSH with 19 members in the Australia and New Zealand Development section. The article contain a notable third party resource that can be obtain from the Open University of Japan, the Higashi Nippon International University and the South Pacific Research Center (there should be more places you can obtain a copy, but I personally not too sure). The micronation organisation UTSH is also recognized by three other micronation organisations(The Republic of Molossia, The Kingdom of Vikesland and The Kingdom of Talossa)--Sukehisashi (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you must say, where we can find this article, it is not reliable source.--Yopie (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Is an ISSN numbered resource, you should be able to look for it anywhere, thank you.Sukehisashi (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How about you post the complete reference, author, etc. here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference can be found in the link behind the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.192.233 (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if we had access to the reference, which we don't, it appears to be in Japanese. Please provide an English translation. Yworo (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Flandrensis

This is a short documentary (in Dutch) of the Belgian micronation Flandrensis. Is the source reliable enough for adding a page on wikipedia? --Lyam Desmet (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is: no! This is an item on a local tv-station about some people and their hobby. gidonb (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case you saved my time and effort here. I already tried to made a page when this micronation was shortly mentioned on the Belgian national television and a Dutch travelmagazine, but that was also a waste of time. But more than half of all micronations mentioned on the page are hobbies and many references are unimportant websites. So I thought: why this micronation not? --Lyam Desmet (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you find micronations that are equally unworthy of an article, please AfD them! gidonb (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Brazil and Denmark

Why is it relevant to detach micronations from Australia and New Zealand and not simply put them on the categories that indeed fit them? Is it not perhaps the finger of one or two micronationalists from Australia trying to call more attention to their own projects in detriment of others? If this divide continue, then I would like to suggest also Europe and Russia and Brazil and Argentina, and China and Japan, and USA and Canada, and so forth. It just sounds like bias as Australia has no more micronations and no more micronational history or activity as Brazil or Denmark for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordlicious (talk • contribs) 14:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Have founded since 2005! NOVATESLALAND How does one get recognation?

Founded NOVATESLALAND,(after Inventor Nikola Tesla 1856-1943(hopefully an oil platform like Micronation between Iceland and Europe to Send Gnerate Geo Thermal Energy WiRESLESSLY( per an Idea of Invbentgor Tesla) To Europe Bur hoiw does one register go about getting even some "FAME" with a Micronation? Let alone get RECOGANTION! Thanks!SPQRANDRE (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot answer that. Try the United Nations. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)