Talk:Republic of Rose Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This page needs a whole lot of NPOV-ifying. -- Kwekubo at 16:16, 7 July 2003

Done. -- Mpt 04:01, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I modified this:

The platform's Council of Government sent a telegram(to whom?) to protest the "violation of its sovereignty and the injury inflicted on local tourism by the military occupation", but this was ignored.

removing the "to whom?". It's a good question though. Who got the telegram? I would assume the Italian government. --cprompt 14:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


According the article, the name of this "micronation is, in Italian, "Isole delle Rose", which means Islands of the Roses and not Rose Island. --SeekingOne 13:29, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

The Italian name is not familiar to me - its presence here predates my editing of the article - however the name that appears on Rose Island's stamps is "Insulo de la Rozoj", which as near as I can tell is expressed in the singular form - but I'm no Esperanto expert. --Gene_poole 22:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
it:Micronazione has Isola. -- Error 05:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Insulo" is indeed the singular form in Esperanto (the plural would be "insuloj"), so "Island of the Roses" is certainly correct. --PeterHansen 23:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I found a website talking of "Isola delle Rose" (this is the right translation, I speak both Italian and Esperanto)
How would you translate Rose Island to Italian, then? —Tamfang 22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As several users have pointed out many years ago, "Isola delle Rose" and "Insulo de la Rozoj" both mean "Island of the Roses" or "Roses Island" (or "Roses' Island"). Unless someone comes up with good arguments why the lemma should use "Rose Island" I will move the article accordingly, the next time I come across it. (probably sometime in 2024...)
@ Tamfang: "Isola della Rosa". And Esperanto is very precise in such things, it would be "Insulo de la Rozo".
--BjKa (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
A literal translation of the Esperanta name would be Island of the Roses; presumably we're not using that because it's alien to English naming custom – as is Roses Island. In New World English, at least, a place known for its pebbles, turtles or oaks is typically Pebble Beach, Turtle Creek or Oak Hill. (I'm sure I've heard of places named with a plural noun in Spanish or French, ... de las ... &c, and the corresponding singular noun in English, though none come to mind.) —Tamfang (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


More references (pointers to old newspaper articles, books, etc.) would be nice. Samboy 23:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
there is a picture of the original flag and all the stamps issued by the short-lived republic
--, 18:21, 6 February 2005

I agree with Samboy. Is it possible to find a non-internet reference to this? While this story is certainly possible, it's also outlandish enough that further proof would be appreciated. Dvyost 15:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I salvaged the following from the webarchive ghost of a bibliography page no longer available on the Footnotes to History site. It cites pages 129-130 of Erwin W. Strauss's How To Start Your Own Country (Port Townshend, WA: Breakout Productions, Inc., 1999) as a source for this story. -- DublinDilettante, 12:33, 2 July 2005

[1] has a link for a podcast where the director of the Esperanto League of North America discusses Rose Island. Bandwidth is currently exceeded, have to wait until tomorrow to hear it. commonbrick 17:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Doubt / Good Article[edit]

I very much doubt whether the micronation known as "Rose Island" has ever even existed beyond imagination. I mean, how could one engineer construct a platform on nine pylons, in deep water eleven kilometres off the coast? --, 18:25, 4 June 2005

Good Article Tag added by Stan2525, 00:29, 24 December 2005

At first reading my feeling was "what a shame they destroyed it". Now I'm wondering if the entire thing is an elaborate hoax. I don't know enough about it to decide, but since people have been questioning the veracity of this on this page since 2003 I think it's reasonable to tag the article. I don't know if it's a hoax or not and that's the purpose of the tag - to encourage a process of discovery. --kingboyk 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Tag removed by Kingboyk, 23:08, 3 February 2006

It's certainly no hoax. It's a well-known historical fact. I assume you overlooked the references, photographs and this. Might be best to take some more care before jumping to conclusions in future.
I've also restored the Good Article tag - which for the record, I was not responsible for adding in the first place. I'm not sure why you removed it, as the article complies with all the necessary requirements, namely: well written, factually accurate, neutral point, stable referenced, and contain images. --Centauri 23:57, 3 February 2006
I didn't jump to any conclusions. I simply stated that I don't know if it's a hoax or not. The article didn't convince me, therefore it's hardly "good" I would say. More to the point, it is very lacking in hard sources.
[2] is in Italian. Sadly I speak only English.
Finally, you say I missed "this" but where exactly is that link in the article?! I still can't find it.
--kingboyk 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Being "convincing" is not one of the criteria for determining if an article is good or not, so I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. On top of which there are by my count 3 different references given between the article and this talk page - one of which is in Italian, as you might reasonably expect given that the events discussed occurred in the vicinity of Italy. Finally the link I referred you to was discovered by doing a Google search that took me all of 3 minutes. I will certainly add it to the references. --Centauri 23:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Tag exchanged for Delisted GA Tag by TheGrappler 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This article achieves all the GA requirements bar one - any images used need to be appropriately tagged. (I try to remember the features of GA using the awful mnemonic BRAWWSTIN - Broad, Referenced, Accurate, Well-Written, Stable, Tagged Images, NPOV; "broad" is not necessarily comprehensive, but no major omissions. This certainly seems to hit BRAWWS- and -IN but not, at the moment, the "T"!) The photo uses an obsolete template and is unsourced, making any verification of PD status impossible. PD seems unlikely; on photographs the usual reasons are: work of U.S. government (most other governments retain copyright - including, I believe, Italy), age (this is a relatively modern photo), or that it has been released by the copyright holder (this seems rather unlikely for such an aerial photograph, whilst it is plausible, something that details the release is necessary). The other picture is apparently released under GFDL by the creator, which is an appropriate tag. Once the photograph is either accurately sourced and appropriately tagged, or alternatively is removed, GA should be reinstated.TheGrappler 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and the previous complaint in regards to it, and it seems that the image of the island still needs to be tagged in order to qualify for GA. ErleGrey 01:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It appears that no one is around to shepherd this nomination; I'm going to delist it, since the image is still not properly tagged. Chubbles 07:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

unconstructive comment[edit]

This is the funniest article ive ever read --Zeno of Elea 06:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Arms / Flag[edit]

Did the Republic have arms (are they those shown on the flag)? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flag Rose Island.gif

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Flag Rose Island.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
-- BetacommandBot (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lonely Planet Micronations guide shows a flag different to the one shown in the article. Does anybody know why this is? --Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Because the flag in Lonely Planet was created by me a number of years ago based on a written description, without the benefit of photographic evidence. The latter only came to light after the publication of the LP guide. The Rose Island flag is more acurately described as a pennant. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That means that the flag caption will have to be changed to pennant. --Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The flag currently shown in this article is incorrect. It was created by me based on a written description. I have subsequently sighted a photograph of the actual flag in an article on this subject published in the journal of the Cinderella Stamp Club (UK), which shows it to be a triangular pennant, not a rectangular flag. I previously uploaded an updated image of the correct design, but it seems to have vanished. Does anyone know why? --Gene_poole (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dates of occupation and destruction?[edit]

The article only mentioned that the Italian reaction was heavy-handed and swift, are there any dates available to show when the Italians take over the island, and when they destroyed it? -- deadkid_dk 23:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Heavy-handed? Four cops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Similiar occurances[edit]

Sealand and other micronations were established during the same period. Shouldn't the article mention that, as context? Fsotrain09 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This has obviously been  Done in the meantime. --BjKa (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Currency unit[edit]

Quote: Purported currency: Mill (Esperanto: "milo" ...)
Esperanto milo is a group of a thousand. A mill (currency) is 0.001 of a basic unit; in Esperanto that would be milono. Most likely milo here refers to spesmilo, and I'll change it accordingly. —Tamfang (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

which province?[edit]

Some phrases now removed seemed to say that the nearest coastline belonged in 1968 to Forlì province but now belongs to Rimini province. Is that what was intended? —Tamfang (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)