Talk:Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads

Old talk page of Kingdom of Humanity: [1]

Morton F. Meads, former U.S. Army Soldier

I added the context from where this fictional story and its islands come from. They come from the tall tales of the CON man, Morton F. Meads. Meads even went to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 1955 and 1956 to try to legitimize his claim over the islands. Meads claimed that his father, Franklin Meads (son of British Captain of the Modeste, James George Meads) along with several other British and American compatriots, visited the Spratlys in 1914 to establish the so-called "Kingdom of Humanity" on "Meads Island." From which, as the grandson of Captain Meads, Morton Meads claims Franklin Meads passed onto him.

Morton Meads' story is notable because it motivated many others, Filipinos, Chinese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc., in advancing their own competitive claims. Meads was aware of the current events at the time. So, he jumped on the opportunity by repeatedly telling his so-called birthright story to others, which later caught the public's attention for the first time in local Manila newspapers in early 1955. XXXpinoy777 (talk) 20:00, 06 April 2024 (UTC)

VfD results

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The article title and the name on the flag do not match 92.10.30.67 (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense

What is this nonsense doing in Wikipedia? It should be deleted. This is entirely fictional, invented by one person by the looks of it, see [2] 88.110.205.9 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's mistaken. There's plenty of publicly-documented history of the Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads and its predecessor the Kingdom of Humanity from at least World War II on (I won't vouch for the story before that). The Wall Street Journal covered it at least twice in front-page stories, and many newspapers in Manila in the 1950's, 60's and 70's. The main mover was an American, Morton F. Meads, who lived (still lives?) in Manila. Morac-Songhrati-Meads appears, from an NPOV, to have been the first claim of sovereignty in the Spratly Islands based on actual occupation of any of the Spratly islands other than Itu Aba Island (or "Tai Ping Island"), which was and is occupied by Taiwan/ROC (and by Japan during WW II), and some temporay French weather stations. China's now-famous "Nine-dash line" claiming all the rest of the Spratlys has no more basis in ground facts than the Meads claim. Possibly less -- those tiny, bare islets, other than Itu Aba and Spratly Island (or "Trường Sa Island") itself (an islet to the southwest briefly occupied by the French/Vietnamese early on), were unoccupied territory (res nullius in International Law) until the Kingdom of Humanity/Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads claimed them. The Nine-dash line and its eleven-dash predecessor were simply drawn on maps by committees in Taipei based on no ground facts.

An important effect, now, of the Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads is that early reports about it alarmed and energized the Philippines press and government to realize that the Philippines had no formal sovereignty claim in the nearby Spratlys. A Philippines businessman named Tomas Cloma imitated Meads and sent a boat out to claim some of the same islands for his new "Free Territory of Freedomland." He was later forced by Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos to transfer the claim, by signing a transfer document, to the Republic of the Philippines, and that is the legal basis of the current Philippines claims to sovereignty in the Spratly Islands.

Meads tried for decades to get respect and recognition of his prior claim of sovereignty over the Spratlys, without success. He did issue M-S-M passports, though.70.113.8.195 (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Very dubious indeed

The text cited by Samuel Pyeatt Menefee casts serious doubt on any of this. As someone noted above, in view of the international importance of the South China Sea and its geopolitics, could this article be deleted as being without foundstion beyond the fantasies of some individuals who have made offerings here? Varnebank (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Contested PROD

This needs to wait- there have been a number of IP edits to this page to insert "fictional", "fantasy", etc. See what I've posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Humanity and the SSP report that's related to it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Historicity of James George Meads

I don't think we have good enough sources to assert that this was a historical personage. A law article and a newspaper article are not good enough given that historians do not treat this as certain. The fact that the later Meads at the same time claimed nonsense about a so-called "Treaty of Southwark" should lead us to take all his claims with a ton of salt. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And there is no record for a James George Meads in the searchable database of British Navy personnel at the UK National Archive. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Some basic research into the genealogical records available for James George Mead (not Meads) shows that he was born in Weymouth, Dorset, on 4 March 1834. He joined the Royal Navy and gained the rank of Lieutenant in 1855, followed by Commander ten years later, becoming a Captain in 1872. By 1889 he was a Rear-Admiral and on 9 December 1894, he was a Retired Vice-Admiral. In 1867 he had served as second in command of Rattlesnake, at Cape of Good Hope and the west coast of Africa. Between 16 January 1878 and 30 September 1881 he was “Captain in Modeste (until paying off at Sheerness) commanded by William Montagu Dowell, China”.https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/27178/page/2131 (promotion 21 March 1900 )

Photograph of HMS Diamond, a similar corvette of the Amethyst class as HMS Modeste

The Angelfire site states that “King James” died in 1888, but investigations show that Vice-Admiral Mead was very much alive and had retired to Bournemouth about 1894. At the time of the 1911 Census, he and his wife had had 3 children (one deceased) and the two living children were still at home. The ages of James and Mary Mead his wife are given as 77 and 60 respectively and this suggests they had their children somewhat later than usual - George Gaskell being aged 27 and his sister Grace 23. There are several servants listed, but none with exotic names from Asia.

George Gaskell Mead had been born in Dorset in 1883 and served in the Army Service Corps during World War I – his mailing address on his medal card given as a garage in Bournemouth. He must have reached the rank of Captain as he is known by this in many subsequent electoral registers for Dorset. In 1929 he appears with his wife Gladys on a passenger list going to Tangier (hardly the South China Sea!) He seems to have spent his last years in a modest flat in Bournemouth and died in a nursing home there in 1966, leaving an estate of only £427 to a spinster lady.

So the real “King James I” - ie James George Mead - died in Bournemouth on 18 March 1913 and left effects of just under £12,000 and there is no way that his son, George Gaskell, could have been “King George I”.

As far as research on Morton Frederick Meads, he was born 1922 the son of Josiah N Meads Nov 1894 died 25 April 1946 see Gazette York PA May 1 1946 survived by parents including Franklin Maurice Meads born 20 Nov 1870 died after his son Josiah, in 14 Sep 1947. Franklin Meads father was not a George but rather Nathaniel Gibson Meads born 7 Nov 1853 to died 8 May 1921, although HIS father was a William De Moss Meads b 19 Jul 1817 to died 28 Apr 1900 it is only his father a James Meads (not James George Mead above) born Nov 1779 died 29 Dec 1856 son of also a James Meads b 26 Dec 1752 died 1817 and he was son also of a James Meads born 28 Feb 1719 died date unkown the son of an Edward Meads born 1694 died 31 Mar 1763 Further Morton F Meads had an older brother mentioned in the aforementioned obit for Josiah N Meads as Thomas F Meads born 1921

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.95.151 (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC) 

Isn't the Southwark bit from the website with the disclaimer? It wasn't mentioned in any of those sources I used. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the archive, I suspect this is him; the dates would line up fairly well. I don't know the scope of that part of the archives; I don't know how much of a service record they will indicate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

As per conversions above, I propose for the deletion of this page. PCommission (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads

A tag has been placed on Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This article should be deleted as everything about it is fictional, as per discussed in the Talk page. There no conclusive proof that such a state ever existed, outside of the fictional story that was created by a single person.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. PCommission (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this a hoax?

There is a huge lack of sources, high amount of speculations and no related wiki pages in this article. Also including no physical, archaeological or photo evidence.

88.230.232.98 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Is litteraly anyone able to verify this

It seems like a load of nonsense Nintentoad125 (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I found who possibly created this possible hoax

So, i digged this page's history and it was created by User:Eequor back in July 2005, which means he may be the creator of this possible hoax. He ceased editing in 2006. I think we should investigate this user's edit history to see if he did other kinds of disruptive edits or hoaxes. Octagon758 (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Not a hoax

A lot of questions have been raised on this talk page about whether or not this article is a hoax. So far, I have successfully verified three of the five sources and am satisfied this is not a hoax, so I have removed the maintenance tag. I'll also be filling in a little information. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Compassionate727 absence of evidence is not evidence of existence. Therefore either vague sources or saying "citation needed" to part of article that states there is no military tecords are evidence of existence of this entity. Cactus Ronin (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nintentoad125: please do not re-add the tag without bringing anything new to the table. As pointed out by Compassionate727 above, the sources cited in this article check out. Similarly, we don't need to entertain Octagon758's argument that a Wikipedian made this up in 2005 when we have reliable sources from 1996 discussing it. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)