Talk:Kingdom of Humanity

Don't think the islands are capable to support the lives of 7,000 residents.. not even 2,000. There's no reliable supply of fresh water. — Instantnood 19:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC) Surely this is a fictional micronation. Shouldn't it be tagged as such? Brecchie 06:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn near all entities known as micronations are fictional, so I don't know what you mean. If anything, this one seemed more legitimate than any other I have heard of. 70.20.238.31 22:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This nonsense hardly deserves to be in Wikipedia but if it is to remain it needs to carry a health warning that it is pure fantasy. 131.111.16.20 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have marked this trash as a candidate for speedy deletion. 99.151.172.71 (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted as it is not a candidate for speedy deletion. In fact, it has already survived an AfD. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this crap won't survive another. An encyclopedia is worthless if the information in it consists of the private fantasies of any individual with a website. 99.151.172.71 (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not fantasy from a website; the AfD turned up a dozen book references. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The big question is-is there any proof that the island government ever resided and ocupied the island and that the island had citizens living on it during the time,recognising them the government as such ? New Babylon 2 (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a shred of evidence. 78.149.147.69 (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.251.241 (talk)

A big issue for me is the history, what I can find from reliable sources suggests that the claim only exists since 1914. "kingdom+of+humanity"+Meads&dq="kingdom+of+humanity"+Meads&num=100&pgis=1 and "kingdom+of+humanity"+Meads&num=100 among others. dougweller (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. Our interventions follow a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. I have reduced the article to what I think is sourced, but it still needs inline references, with page numbers. The 1914 date is in my opinion rather weakly sourced and I have left in a wording that people may like to improve on. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this was cooked up as a claim in the mid 1950s as part of a dispute over ownership of the islands linked to claims about control of territorial waters. There is no evidence that any 'kingdom' or even occupation ever existed, or that the earlier Mead's regime was anything but invented by the later Mead as a fantasised lineage for his claims. Of course that's a judgement just based on the various previews and snippets in G-books, but surely this is best merged with the Spratly islands article where it can be made sense of in the context of the territorial disputes of the time. Other stuff like the "flag" of the kingdom has no discernable provenance. How do we know that someone didn't just invent that recently? The webpage claimed to be its source does not exist. Paul B (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're almost certainly right. I'm putting a merge tag on for discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The flags are probably unrelated- based off of the website. Here's what I think has happened:

1. Real guy, James George Meads, claims the Spratlys to be his
2. Years later, descendant creates Kingdom of Humanity, which merges into the other
3. MSM makes international calls about the Spratlys that get some media attention
4. Years later, some guy makes an angelfire site as part of a project, that creates flags and a false history (sort-of based off of the real story; enough that real names are used)
5. Here's the problem- people see the website and think it's the real MSM government; some journalists (like an article I pulled off of the MSM article) and other online websites cite the angelfire site as a source, not noticing its disclaimer.
6. And, of course, banned user (posting under IPs) finds angelfire site, ignores book refs, and states that it must not exist at all, since the site has a disclaimer. Person ignores books we find at AfD, starts stalking me because I found him out and got the article kept.

In any event, we just need to sort out what's real history, and what comes from the angelfire site. The good thing is, there are some big differences in what the books say and what the angelfire site claims, so we can tell what's based off of the website pretty easily. I'm planning on getting the one book I mentioned at RSN, but it's through a university interlibrary loan, and spring semester doesn't start for a little over a month. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this certainly seems plausible given the evidence mentioned in other book you've referred to on another page. I wish there was more we could go on. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

• Propose merge. All the reliable sources treat this as a minor footnote in the history of the islands. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. It looks like it's a footnote to that micronation, but I still suspect that MSM has some history, since it sounds like they garnered some media attention with their claims over the territory. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

At present we haven't got enough material for an article on either KoH or MSM. At most we have enough for a sentence in the Spratly Islands article. If more sources turn up and if the Spratly article starts getting too long then we can break out an article on MSM that will also mention KoH. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Agree. Merge to Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)