Talk:Micronation

Deletion Log

• Deleted old talk. Archived here: [1] (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Micronation&oldid=602465). Martin 10:33 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
  • tallossa.com is down
  • debate on the distinction between fifth nation and micronation, if any
    • Vera Cruz thinks that fifth nation is a subset of micronation
    • Tallini thinks that the differences are so big that the concepts are distinct
  • need to merge micronation with micronationalism -- done by The Anome.
  • Need to have seperate categories, possibly articles. Need to distinguish between historical anomalies, aspirant microstates, and hobbyist stuff (general agreement here)
  • alleging fraud: it's ok, because we have sound sources
  • removing "verifiable existence" - what does that actually mean?
  • amusing dispute between redondan claimants
    • Kingdom of Redonda (http://www.redonda.org) (King Leo)
    • Kingdom of Redonda (http://www.antiguanice.com/redonda/index) (King Bob)
  • "various other concepts" deleted.
  • slight tweak to "what is a micronation" discussed
  • Are micronations just silly?

I've a suggestion. Currently we have an entry that categorises micronations, which is inevitably going to cause conflict over where each nation should go: is Pacifica a vehicle for the entertainment of its 57 members, or is it promoting the portugese culture, or is it genuinely an aspirant microstate? There's also the question of whether a micronation should be included at all.

I believe that the way to solve this is to change that section to talk about the different motivations behind micronationalism. Then there could be one section on each motivation, and each motivation could give a single illustrative example. Other examples, less useful for the purposes of illustration, can be relegated to list of micronations.

Btw, "Wikipedia on 5th escatology list" - does anyone know what that means? It rings a bell, but only from the Principia Discordia... Or what HMCT stands for, for that matter? Martin

Hello. Isn't there a convention to archive old talk? As is done at... erm, I'm sure I've seen it doen in a few places, but I can't think where... Oh, here's one: Talk:Mathematics (archive). Or is this not considered necessary in general? -- Oliver PEREIRA 13:00 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Editing policy for where I'm coming from. Apologies if I've broken taboos. I've added a link to the version before my deletion. Martin

Ah, I see! It looks like you've done the right thing. Sorry, I'm still a bit hazy about all these conventions. But I think it's nice that one can go back into the history and see what people were saying, so thanks for putting in the extra link. -- Oliver PEREIRA 13:55 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Should SMOM and Palestine be listed here at all? The former is widely-recognised as a "real" sovereign state by a long list of "real" countries (including the US), and the latter is a de-facto state in all but name.

There is a grey area between "nations" and "micronations", as there isn't a single operative definition. Both SMOM and Palestine fall somewhere in this grey area. If you remove them, you may as well remove Sealand. At least Sealand has a territory that it exercises sovereignity over. Neither SMOM nor Palestine meet this criteria. At heart, the big problem here is probably trying to cram too many things into the definition of "micronations". The examples given vary from serious efforts to parodies. If you draw the line at "recognized by other major sovereigns", then even the Confederacy would have been considered a microstate.

In any case "A small number of micronations are founded with genuine aspirations to be sovereign states" in the description of that category is essentially incorrect. Nova Roma, for example, claims to be serious about their declaration of sovereignty. I'm also wary about saying that Sealand is a sovereign Principality, or that SMOM is a sovereign state, when these points are disputed. Martin

When constructed, in 1942, Sealand was in international waters, because the UK only claimed three nautical miles off its coast. On 1 October 1987, Britain extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 nautical miles. Sealand is six nautical miles from the UK coast. Therefore it is in formerly international waters.

A side note: we need articles on territorial waters[?] and international waters[?] The Anome