Talk:List of micronations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I'm pretty sure neither Denmark nor Kazakhstan count as micronations by any definition of the term, so removing them. The Wikipedia article on micronations seems to imply they are restricted to very tiny, generally unrecognized countries, which would mean Djibouti (a tiny, one-island country, but well-established and well-recognized) should be removed as well. Delirium 01:02 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

If I declare my bedroom independent, can I get it on the list? King Danny I

Noticing that there is a micronation here named Purple Bunny, I think my previous question has been answered. Danny

Is this list anything more than a vanity project? Most of the micronations listed have an *extremely* tenous existence - many, in fact are already defunct.

---

I suggest

1. removing all real nations from this page
2. keeping this page, but as a list of names, not a list of links

Well done to everyone who helped fix this page up. One query: why was Aerican Empire removed - Does someone know for sure that it's not a micronation? -Martin

I assume that the only entities listed here are ones deserving of separate articles. Aerica is an 'interplanetary empire' run by a bunch of schoolkids as a website - ie it's a fantasy country, and doesn't really qualify. G

It's mentioned in the micronation article as an example of a micronation. Likewise the Kingdom of Hay-on-Wye. Incidentally, if Aerica goes, TorHavn probably should as well.

---

Does Christiania qualify as a micronation? What about The Kingdoms of Elgaland-Vargaland ( http://www.krev.org/ )? // Liftarn 16:56 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

The latter doesn't have a wikipedia article, so for now it can be excluded on that basis. I'm unsure about christinia Martin

Christiana probably should have an article. The rest are fantasies. G

Christiania actually has an article where it states "Christiania, also known as the Free State of Christiania is a partially self-governing neighborhood in the city of Copenhagen, Denmark, which has established semi-legal status as an independent community." // Liftarn

---

The dmoz link was removed with "removed fantasy link" as the reason. Could 202.138.194.10 elaborate on that reason, please?

I did not remove the dmoz link. I removed the Pacifica link.

---

Should Transdniester be added here? According to a programme broadcast by the BBC, it "has its own president, currency, stamps, customs regime, foreign policy and national anthem, but Transdniester is recognised by no nation on earth."

Perhaps a separation of fantasy nations from real aspirant states would help. Categories might be based on those listed on the micronations page. --Suitov

No, I don't think Transnistria should be listed as a micronation. First, it's too big. Second, although it isn't recognized by any government, Russia supports it militarily and the US understands its diplomatic relevance. Third, according to its web site Transnistria desires unification with Moldova on acceptable terms. So I don't see how its situation differs materially from that of Taiwan, which nobody considers a micronation.

Empire of Atlantium

Empire of Atlantium does not belong on this list. The qualifications state "This is a list of micronations that have an historic verifiable existence documented in both online and offline sources that includes interaction with established real world governments or organisations, and which have articles on Wikipedia." (emphasis mine). Empire of Atlantium does not have any interaction with established real world governments. I vote to not include Empire of Atlantium on this list. Samboy 05:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have already attempted to discuss this with you politely on your talk page, so I am going to say this once, very nicely: Kindly refrain from presenting your false and unsubstantiated POV as fact. Atlantium fulfills all of the listed criteria and evidence in support of that reality is widely available in the public domain. If you choose to have issues with micronations in general you really should take care not allow that to affect the soundness of your judgement when it comes to factual, historically verifiable entities and events. --Gene_poole 05:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gene, you have been outvoted. I have removed Empire of Alantium from this list, as has IndigoGenius. You're the only one who wants Empire of Alantium on this list. Why do you keep going against consensus here? Samboy 06:06, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I must have been asleep the day "the vote" was taken. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia editing policies and community standards, because if you persist in continuing to vandalise this article on spurious grounds you will be called upon to defend your actions based upon them.--Gene_poole 06:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am familiar with the processes. I have added this page to the requests for comment page and will now let other people decide on this issue. Samboy 06:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Gene, that you have violated the three revert rule. I will not revert again, in spirit of this, and I hope we can get a rough consensus here. I am willing to keep the link, Gene, if rough consensus here agrees; I hope you are willing to keep the link off if the rough consensus disagress with your point of view. Samboy

1. I have NOT violated the 3 revert rule. I strongly suggest you withdraw that statement, lest you be shown to be a liar. 2. You should bear in mind that facts are not subject to committee decisions. Any committee that decides that "black is white" for example, lacks credibility, and will justifiably have its views derided. I suggest that if you want to avoid the same fate that you conduct some actual research on all subjects that you raise for public discussion.--Gene_poole 06:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You will violate the three-revert rule if you revert my changes a fourth time. I will let it stand that you haven't...yet. Samboy 07:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, so one minute it's "Keep in mind, Gene, that you have violated the three revert rule" and the next it's "You will violate the three-revert rule if you revert my changes a fourth time." How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you make such idiotic statements and then have the temerity to offer flippant disregard instead of an apology?--Gene_poole 08:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are very hot-headed Gene. I will sleep on this and decide what to do about you tomorrow. We'll see if anyone else posts here in the meantime. Samboy 08:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And you are extremely unwise to publish outright lies about other editors in writing, in a public forum, then flippantly refuse to apologise for doing so, and then compound your transgression by publishing further unsubstantiated comments concerning the personal character of the subject of your abuse. Unless you acknowledge and apologise for your behaviour in the next 24 hours I will seek intervention. --Gene_poole 10:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Samboy, you refer to Gene being "outvoted". I'm not sure where this vote took place, but let me register my vote that we keep Atlantium listed here, if not in the list itself, then in the see also section. Right now we only list 6 places. I don't see the harm in listing one more, and I think Atlantium is as likely to be found interesting by someone coming to this page as any of the other links. anthony (see warning) 14:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, I note that you have changed your mind have made this a simple redirect. I think this is a reasonable compromise. Samboy 19:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Definitions

This is a list of micronations that have an historic verifiable existence documented in both online and offline sources that includes interaction with established real world governments or organisations, and which have articles on Wikipedia.

This definition is utterly useless. Nearly any organization can be shown to have a verifiable existence documented in both online and offline sources that includes interaction with established real world governments or organisations. So any "micronation", which we describe as "entities that resemble independent states, but for the most part exist only on paper, on the internet, or in the minds of their creators" with an article on Wikipedia would qualify. In fact, by that silly definition of micronation, something like Sealand, which is one of the few places I would expect to be on this list, wouldn't qualify (as it clearly exists right here in the real world). anthony (see warning) 14:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) [micronation wikified after reply]

I disagree. There are almost no micronations that have a verifiable existence outside the internet, or that interact with other organisations in the real world. The definition is intended to ensure that Wikipedia isn't inundated with hundreds of listings by kids who invented a 1 web-page kingdom half an hour ago. Sealand is verifiably real - multiple offline sources refer to it, and physical artefacts created in its name exist, so it fits the definition of a notable micronation, as intended. --Gene_poole 14:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, only micronations which have articles on Wikipedia qualify to be listed. So Wikipedia won't be inundated with hundreds of listings by kids who invented a 1 web-page kingdom half and hour ago, because articles on those web-page kingdoms will be deleted. Secondly, I don't think you understood my point on Sealand. The fact that Sealand is verifiably real implies that it is probably not a micronation in the first place, as micronations "for the most part exist only on paper, on the internet, or in the minds of their creators". We've got two nearly mutually exclusive definitions going on here. We want a list of places with verifiable existence which for the most part don't really exist! anthony (see warning) 14:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. Sealand, Hutt River, Seborga etc are all obviously real - but they are all obviously not explicitly acknowledged as being legitimate states by any other country - ergo, they are micronations. Verifiably real they may be - but until they enter into relations with other nations, micronations they are fated to remain. Unless we make a clear distinction between micronations that are "real" - ie, that "do stuff" somewhere other than on the internet, and who produce physical artefacts as evidence of that - then the whole notion of defining what a micronation is or is not devolves into a grey meaningless semantic ooze. --Gene_poole 15:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my point. I'm not saying these places are not micronations. In fact, I pointed out Sealand as an example of what is obviously a micronation. I'm saying our definition of micronation (it's a quote, hence the quotation marks) is a poor one.

I also fail to see how a micronation which does not "do stuff" somewhere other than on the internet is therefore not "real". anthony (see warning) 16:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I understand your point very clearly. However, an entity that is "real" but unrecognised is still a micronation precisely because it is unecognised. It certainly cannot accurately be described as a sovereign state, because that implies recognition by other states, amongst other generally accepted criteria. Aside from that, micronations existed for many decades before the internet, and most of the early ones were "real" in some way - usually attempts at the creation of new countries in a tangible location, made by real people, so the default historic position on defining the term has always been that it referred to "real but unrecognised" entities that looked like states, acted like states and produced similar instruments as states - but were nonetheless not states. The internet has simply made it simpler for overimaginative kids to create web page micronations - but that needs to be kept in perspective when attempting a review of the phenomenon from an historic perspective.--Gene_poole 20:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Making a redirect page

I agree with anthony that this should just be a redirect page. Samboy 18:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)