Talk:Micronation

What is the problem with this article? You've been reverting back and forth, but both versions seem legit. Metasquares 22:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gene Poole, who is the "emperor" of "Atlantium", wants to insert his nonsense state into a list of genuine "aspirant states" with Palestine. --Wik 22:32, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Wik is systematically deleting all references to one of the entities referenced in the article as a result of what appears to be some sort of attempted personal vendetta. The assertions that Wik continues to make concerning Atlantium are unsubstantiated personal opinions that are rendered invalid by verifiable evidence that exists in the public domain, but which he/she continues to refuse to acknowledge. Gene Poole

According to The FAQ on Atlantium.org, Atlantium is not a Micronation. Therefore, why should it be on the list? Metasquares 22:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because it is frequently referred to using that formulation by external commentators seeking a familiar reference point. Gene Poole

They seem to want to distinguish themselves from other micronations, and if they themselves proclaim that they are not a micronation, I don't see how we can argue based on other people's perspectives. I've posted this on requests for comments in the hope that we can get more opinions on this. Metasquares 23:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

While they claim on their FAQ site to not be a "micronation", the website goes on to use a definition that is different from the definition laid out at the top of the article. The FAQ site claims that micronations "exist only on the Internet", a constraint that is not supported by the Wikipedia article. If the article's definition is correct (and it was not a point of dispute in the recent edit war), Atlantium may be a micronation whether they want to be considered such or not.

Based on the data in their website and the descriptions in the article, I would consider Atlantium to be an example of a "type 1" micronation, not "type 6". According to their FAQ, they have not attempted to secede or dispute the territory they occupy (a common characteristic of type 6's). Also from the FAQ, "Atlantium has not sought to establish bilateral relations with any other state, and does not intend to do so ..." (the other common characteristic of type 6's).

However, since we have other, non-controversial examples for each type, I see little harm in leaving them out of the article. Rossami 22:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What the hell?! Where did this article disappear to? I edited one line and the entire thing vanished with the exception of the links! Gene_Poole

Deletion Log

Deleted old talk. Archived here: [1]. 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 (King Leo)
  - Kingdom of Redonda (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

SMOM is not a state or micronation. It is a Sovereign Order. Predating the modern nation state, sovereign status freed the order and its property from local feudal lords, and the trappings of government are similar to those of the other Catholic Religious orders, but with the ability to act independently of the local lords. Previously territory was necessary to secure this independence – and protect its property. In the modern political climate this is no longer thought necessary – hence the offer of territory from Malta was declined. Can its diplomatic immunity to further humanitarian activities be equated to, for example, UNHCR or ICRC? garryq 15:39, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

In a paragraph which starts "Micronational activities were disproportionately common throughout Australia in the final three decades of the 20th century", it would seem perfectly sensible to include a number of examples, particularly ones that were well documented in the Australian press, which Gene Poole states in an edit summary is the case for the following examples:

a mortgage foreclosure dispute led George and Stephanie Muirhead of Rockhampton, Queensland to secede as the Principality of Marlborough in 1993. Yet another Australian secessionist state came into existence on 1 May 2003, when Peter Gillies declared the independence of his 66 hectare northern New South Wales farm as the Principality of United Oceania after an unresolved year-long dispute with Port Stephens Council over Gillies' plans to construct a private residence on the property.

These examples are verifiable through Google, and highly relevant to a paragraph which is trying to document how widespread this phenomenon was. There seems no reason to delete them. Angela 17:53, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The only Google hit for "Principality of United Oceania" is this Wikipedia article. There are only 3 hits for "Principality of Marlborough". That's what I call irrelevant, especially for such recent events. It seems clear that those "secessions" were of no consequence. --Wik 18:02, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

And what about the fact they were highly documented in the press? You can't find everything through Google, and I would expect this is even more true of issues relating to non-American topics, like that in this paragraph. However, I am willing to compromise and keep only the Principality of Marlborough one. The fact it has "only three Google hits" is irrelevant; the information is verifiable and real. Without further sources quoted for the information about the Principality of United Oceania, I am happy to leave that out for now. Angela 18:53, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That "fact" is just Gene Poole's claim at the moment. The fact is that the Australian press is online like any other, so if it had been widely reported Google would find it on some Australian media site. Incidentally, I found this comment on VfD:

Delete both. Marcus McCallion is non-famous. Reflexive typography is idiosyncratic (1 Google hit). Angela 15:03, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So 1 Google hit is not good enough, but 3 are? Marcus McCallion appears to be more famous than those "principalities". But well, surely Angela has some good reasons here. I don't want to suggest that she is just opposing me on principle. That impression shouldn't come across. --Wik 19:31, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

I might oppose an article on something with one Google hit if there was no good reason not to, but that is not the same as opposing a sentence in an article about something that has three Google hits, and a claim from someone that it was in the press. Angela

There are important scholarly books, authoritative source material that I've been using for articles, that are barely visible to Google because there aren't any people-with-no-lives making web pages about them. Google is a useful research tool, but it's not an actual authority; in fact, I think I recall Wik arguing that "Adolph Hitler" wasn't worth mentioning in WP despite its 77,000 Google hits. So Wik is not being very consistent in dismissing Google results one moment and holding it up as the very definition of significance the next. Stan 18:57, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am perfectly consistent. Your logic is flawed. When I say something is irrelevant when it is not on Google, it doesn't follow that something is automatically relevant when it is on Google. Of course the web contains a lot of trash, including misspellings. But at the same time any subject worth mentioning in an encyclopaedia (with some exceptions, but they don't apply here) will have more than 3 Google hits. --Wik 19:31, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Wik - I'm glad you admit the possibility of exceptions. I'd be interested to see what exceptions you think there are, and why they don't apply here? Or, put another way, what would it take to convince you that the Principality of United Oceania was "worthy" of inclusion?

Incidentally, it appears that the Principality of United Oceania was indeed mentioned in the press: at least, the Australian Daily Telegraph, July 24th, 2003 page 20 (try a google groups search). Sadly, the archives aren't available online for free. As a result, they aren't indexed by google. Martin 22:40, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Removed Palestine. Whatever its true status should or will eventually be, it (along with, say, the "Tamil Homeland", or Bougainville) is a qualitatively different beast from entities like the bloody Hutt River Province, and associating them is horribly misleading. --Robert Merkel 23:13, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi folks, is there any chance of discussing this page and coming to some compromise so that the page can be unlocked? Thanks. Pakaran . 04:57, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The only credible response is a restoration of the article as it existed prior to the unilateral deletion carried out by Wik. That action was demonstrably based solely on the aforsesaid user's prejudicial attitude towards the subject of the deletetion. Whilst Wik may disagree with the validity and/or legitimacy ascribed to that subject, he/she has provided no evidence to support his/her assertion that the subject is "irrelevant" or "fictitious". This is particularly significant in light of the fact that plentiful evidence to the contary exists in the public domain - both online and off. Gene Poole

Kindly fix link to Sovereign Military Order of Malta into Knights Hospitaller as those pages was merged Przepla 23:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. Angela . 03:23, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Wik has commenced selectively vandalising this article again. It needs to be reverted to the previous unvandalised reversion. Gene Poole

Page protected

This page has been protected due to an edit war. -- Viajero 21:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Palestine is a nation and not a "micronation". There are over 3 million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and nearly 9 million worldwide. They share history, language, culture. The fact that they have not achieved the typical institutions of a state is irrelevant: they are a nation, not a micronation. I believe that the only reason they have been included as a 'micronation' is political, and to cause offence. Please do not abuse Wikipedia for wiping out people.pir 07:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Palestine was more than likely written-in because it is undeniably an aspirant state. Whether it actually belongs in this article however is less certain. In any case, I seriously doubt that encyclopaedic genocide was the deliberate intention of whoever included it. Gene Poole

OK, I take the charge of encyclopaedic genocide back - I have read similar extremist views in other Wikipedia articles, but I can't substantiate it here. You are probably right that it was included as an aspirant state. However this is all the more reason to remove it from here: we need to distinguish between nation (a group of people that share e.g. history, culture etc.) and sovereign state (a country with defined territory and institutions like government). Palestinians might aspire to statehood but they are a nation. pir 19:03, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Much of the source of the disputes above seem to be around the categorization of various examples into specific types of micronations. May I suggest that we do not need to create or include an exhaustive list. In fact, listing the history of every micronation probably does more harm than good if the article rambles along rather than being clear and concise.

This is an encyclopedia article about micronations generally. Categories and a few clear examples within each category advance that goal. Controversial or unclear examples should either be omitted or deliberately put into an "other" category. The rest of the sufficiently famous micronations may deserve their own article without needing to be discussed in this one. Rossami 18:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The constant bickering over what constitutes an example of a micronation is interfering with progress on the definition of a micronation. Metasquares 03:50, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article needs to be reverted to the most recent version by by myself. Subsequent troll vandalisation has resulted in the inclusion of invalid data, and deletion of valid data. Gene Poole

This is exactly the place to discuss the article with your adversaries. Talk and compromise, or revert and get the page protected. Simple as that. Kosebamse 10:10, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The word "Micronation" should refer to countries like San Marino, Monaco, Andorra, Brunei, Vatican City and Nauru. Micro means very small and those countries fit in those categories. Palestine is a more delicate issue. It could be argued that the West Bank is in fact Palestine under a different name. Palestine is in the same situation as Northern Cyprus and Biafra (1967-70). It has recognition from other countries but not from a high percentage of World countries. It should be put in the same category as South Ossetia, Somaliland, Abkhazia, N. Cyprus and other unrecognized entities. Putting Palestine in a semi-recognition category which would also include Northern Cyprus would have merits. Vital component Sat. March 6th 4:42pm

But that is not the meaning of the word: one cannot change its meaning to suit one's own preference. -- Kwekubo 22:01, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To many words are stolen today. Technicly speaking the "third would countries" should be the "fifth world countries" because are still powerful communist socialist marxist nations not yet defunct. However people still call poor nations "third world" eventhough thats not what the word means. Stuff like thats happens to much nowadays. Vital component 4:31 pm

When this page is unprotected, I recommend moving most of the External Links to the new article list of micronations. Rossami 22:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The list of External Links directly reference entities discussed in the article and should certainly not be moved. The separate article list of micronations lists all micronations that have dedicated Wikipedia articles. Gene Poole

---

Please, I beg, let Nova Roma be changed to Nova Roma or something like this. It has nothing at all to do with "New Rome", which is what Nova Roma Redirects to. Dogface 19:26, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What about the two micronations declared in London: Frestonia [2] declared in 1977 to try to stop the Greater London Council from evicting squatters, and Wanstonia [3] declared in 1993 to try to stop a road scheme? Dbiv 22:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Useless links

Article links to Nova Roma, but there is no article there; it redirects to New Rome, which is irrelevant.

Article also links to Republic of Talossa, which redirects back to this article.

Probably due to people going on vendettas to remove references to micronations from Wikipedia. Is there an actual policy on micronations for Wikipedia, or is it just most-persistent rules out here? Jdavidb 21:07, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

There's not so much a formal policy as a common sense rule-of-thumb; if a micronation exists in the real world, then it is notable, and worth an article. If it exists as a couple of internet pages, or is a fantasy creation, then it isn't - although if it is a notable fantasy example it might be noted in the micronation article.

By "exists" I mean that actual third party documentary evidence can be cited as proof of activities conducted by the micronation in the physical world involving real people, products or services.

Nova Roma is a Roman-themed re-enactment group that is most certainly worthy of an article. Talossa is an online fantasy that isn't (but it is already noted in the micronation article).--Gene_poole 02:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism 2

I would like to report that this page is being vandalised by Gene_poole, the author of many micronational articles such as the Empire of Atlantium, Hutt River Province, Rose Island, and Sealand, and who seems to have complained about vandalism himself in the past. It is interesting to note that Gene Poole can also be reached at the Atlantium email address.

The Fifth World is an offshoot of the micronational phenomena, and thus can be legitimately placed and mentioned in an article about micronationalism. Any reason for keeping the Fifth World movement out can only be arbitrary and POV. Let me also point out that the well-written Italian version of the article also mentions 8 categories of micronations, and it also mentions Fifth World nations.

None of the micronations that Gene Poole mentions owns an alternate root top-level domain, none of these micronations owns IPv4 networks, and none of these micronations has any real bank credit, unlike some Fifth World nations, and even the Fifth World Council itself.

I would like to suggest to Gene Poole that he stick to editing articles about the nations he does know something about, and leave the nations from which he has received donations alone, if he doesn't want trouble in the future.

--

The above contributor is encouraged to cease interpolating irrelevant "Fifth World" content into this and other articles (including foreign language articles). These fantasies are not an "offshoot" of anything - apart from the author's overly fertile imagination. Nor are they acknowledged as having any form of relevance or currency by anyone aside from this same single paranoid author.--Gene_poole 02:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Question

According to the article, for the most part, micronations exist only on paper, on the Internet, or in the minds of their creators and participants, but a small number have also managed to achieve some degree of recognition. When they do, they converge to some degree with other organizing paradigms that offer, or seem to offer, political or infrastructural independence of some sort.

Now all this suggests that there are micronations that exist not only on paper, on the internet, or in the minds of their creators (ownership of land/buildings notwithstanding). Is this in fact true? Exploding Boy 05:39, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

There are plentiful examples cited in the article.--Gene_poole 10:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well that was helpful. Actually, the article doesn't seem to give any examples of micronations that have achieved any degree of recognition, converging with other organizing paradigms that offer political or infrastructural independence of any sort. Exploding Boy 11:28, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same article? Did you read the bits about the Clunies-Ross family on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the White Rajas of Borneo, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, The Principality of Seborga etc ? --Gene_poole 11:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

None of those exists in the present, which is what the opening paragraph suggests. Exploding Boy 11:43, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Huh? (1) 50% of the listed entities exist in the present day (ie now, ie July 2004), (2) Use of the past tense in the opening paragraph (as in "have achieved") specifies nothing other than the "achievement" has occurred at a past juncture. Could I suggest you do a little more research - on both English grammar and micronations - before attempting to continue this discussion.--12:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which micronations have achieved recognition, political or infrastructural independence? Exploding Boy 12:21, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

As in most things there are degrees of "recognition". From a practical standpoint, the Brookes' in Borneo and the Clunies-Ross' on Cocos Island had complete physical control over the territories and people they ruled. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta has had no territory aside from some buildings in Rome for some 200 years, however they have full diplomatic relations with half the nations in the world and observer status at the UN. Seborga's independent currency is a valid means of exchange in shops and banks within its borders. The Hutt River Province people apparently have paid no taxes to the Australian government, nor received any Aust Govt services since the 1970s. Closer to home, Atlantium has, amongst other things, had fully accredited representatives (a) make recognised representation to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees' Working Group on Indigenous Peoples in Geneva, (b) be invited to the most recent Brazilian Presidential inauguration and (c) have formal discussions with former President Mejia of the Dominican Republic.--Gene_poole 12:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. But The SMOM isn't a micronation is it? Same for Seborga, if the article on the place is correct. The article on Hutt River Province says that no government recognises the Province's claims to independence (and tax evasion doesn't equal independence). I'm also interested in your claims about Atlantium. The article says "No established nation has recognised Atlantium's sovereignty and it has no reciprocal diplomatic relations..." and also makes no mention of the items you list above. So can you provide the info? Exploding Boy 13:01, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

There is no agreement on what SMOM is. It is an historic anomaly that doesn't fit any of the standard categories. Seborga has de facto existence but has no reciprocal diplomatic relations with any other country. Likewise with Hutt River - however lack of "recognition" by other states does not mean that the "unrecognised" entity does not have a de facto existence. Atlantium is also "formally unrecognised", but has ongoing interactions with numerous governments and NGOs at various levels. Indeed, I am due to visit Brazil early in 2005 during which I will be holding discussions with several state governors and numerous members of the local diplomatic community. There were attempts to include some of the data mentioned above in the Atlantium article, but several other contributors seemed to take personal offense at the idea of their inclusion, and expunged them.--Gene_poole 13:14, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, ok, but all of those examples are revealed as rather weak when subjected to scrutiny. In terms of having achieved recognition, political or infrastructural independence, none of them seems to apply. Exploding Boy 13:19, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary. All the cited examples show varying degrees of "recognition"; Seborga has both political and infrastructural (de facto) indepence and Hutt River has at very least a strong degree of infrastructural independence - and I'm not talking about tax avoidance; late last year I was shown, by a journalist for a leading Australian broadsheet newspaper, a copy of a letter from the Australian Taxation Office that states that Hutt River was to be considered an independent entity by that Office, and therefore not subjected to Australian taxation.--Gene_poole 13:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Forget about Sebroga for the time being, since we're not sure what it is (but whatever it is, it's probably not a micronation), but as for Hutt River, the article claims that "The Australian Government's current position on the Province is that it is nothing more than a private enterprise operating under a business name." Exploding Boy 13:37, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

On what grounds are you claiming that Seborga is not a micronation? The Hutt River article certainly repeats the claim that the Australian government doesn't "recognise" Hutt River - but I have sighted documentary evidence to the contrary - so the government's position has either changed since the documentary evidence was created, or else it is internally inconsistent. Either way the current statement in the article is incorrect. Maybe you should change it.--Gene_poole 23:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On what grounds are you claiming that Seborga is not a micronation? It doesn't fit the definition. You yourself say above that it's a historic anomaly that doesn't fit the standard categories. But it's certainly not a hobby group, which is what most micronations can be called. Maybe you should change it. Maybe you should change it. And then you can wait five minutes and change it again when it gets reverted. Unless you can offer some actual evidence (other than "I saw a copy of a letter from the Australian Taxation Office," that is). Exploding Boy 03:31, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I don't intend to argue with you any further on this or any related subjects. It is not possible to engage in rational discourse with those who don't even appear to have the limited intelligence necessary to read and understand simple English sentence structure.--Gene_poole 04:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Come on Gene, Genie, Genie baby. Sure you can do better than that? You know, you don't have to resort to insults. If you don't have an answer, just say so. I won't hold it against you. Exploding Boy 05:36, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Nova Roma interpolations

Belgsoc appears to be a disgruntled former member of the above group who is attempting to interpolate irrelevant content and external links about an undocumented (probably fictitious) alternative Roman re-enactment group into the article, in preference to that of Nova Roma.--Gene_poole 06:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gene, we went over this on the votes for deletion page for Nova Roma; You keep reverting edits that mark Nova Roma as an "Exercise in fantasy or creative fiction" instead of a "Social, economic or political simulation". Why is this? Samboy 20:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. Yes, we did go over it. Weren't you paying attention? 2. Because it is. See 1. --Gene_poole 22:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gene, you are breaking the three-revert rule. Are we going to have to report you on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration page? There are at least two people, in addition to myself, who are members of Nova Roma who do not feel that Nova Roma is a micronation. So why do you keep insisting it is one, in spite of the general consensus here going against your ideas? Samboy 05:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You do not seem to grasp the simple fact that what you feel is totally and completely irrelevant to this - any any other - discussion. If you are not prepared to deal with cold hard facts then you should not be editing articles on Wikipedia. Nova Roma is included in the Micronation article because that is exactly how the group describes itself, at great length, on their own website! As an alleged member of the group you seem disturbingly unfamiliar with this fundamental fact of Nova Roma's reality. In any case, I would be delighted to hear your explanation of how a group that describes itself as a micronation is somehow not a micronation.--Gene_poole 05:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Note: "Gene Poole" is a psudonym; his real name is George Cruickshank and he calls himself the "Emperor" of Atlantium) To clarify: I'm not a member of Nova Roma, and have never been involved in this group, except to vote for their article to be deleted. Samboy 20:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note to admins: I am noting the above comment as further evidence of Samboy's tendency to lie, and then to change his story, as part of what appears to be a nascent campaign of personal vilification against another editor. As shown above Samboy, appearing to have an axe to grind, is interested only in petty point scoring, and does not respond to any of the preceding valid points of discussion.--Gene_poole 20:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"In any case, I would be delighted to hear your explanation of how a group that describes itself as a micronation is somehow not a micronation" {Gene Pool} Well, I would be delighted to hear how a lunatic who "describes himself" as Jesus Christ is somehow "NOT" Jesus Christ. With Nova Roma, we can see easily what it IS. Nova Roma is a not-for-profit corporation in MAINE, under MAINE LAW. It owns a small plot of land in Texas, under Texas Law, and given the events of 1861-1865, it is extremely unlikely that the US will allow this little spot of earth to secede and become a nation. Nova Roma is also a collection of free YAHOO MAILING LISTS. Their website is hosted free of charge by a member who has web hosting as an AMERICAN BUSINESS. The "citizens" of Nova Roma are mostly Americans, with plenty of Europeans, South Americans, and maybe a few in Asia. They all live in their real world nations, work in their real world nations, pay taxes in their real world nations, and live at least 90 percent of their lives in their real world nations. Nova Roma has how much industry? None. Nova Roma has how much agriculture? None. How many "citizens" look to NR for protection of life and property? None. A Maine company and a bunch of mailing lists....and would you have any of us believe that Nova Roma is a nation in any legitmate sense of that word? Hell no. Stuart Smith