Micronation claim[edit]

The following text has been repeatedly added by a few editors:

"The Hunter Island is also claimed by the micronation Republic of Lostisland.[1]"

Note that some of the editors adding it are largely single-purpose, and the supposed entity in question doesn't even warrant an article on Wikipedia. --Ckatzchatspy 03:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Information about the expedition to Hunter on the official website of the Republic of Lostisland
However, the Island is claimed by the said micronation, and we do have clear sources to indicate that it does and of course there are pictures of this on the internet. BarnabyJoe (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter Island is one of the most remoted and unapproachable pieces of land, and the very fact that somebody arranged an expedition to it is notable and certainly deserves place in the article. Moreover, this seems to be the only expedition to Hunter in modern history, at least Google doesn't give any results other than the link provided in the references list. Mr. Ckatz, everybody knows that you hate micronations and micronationalism, everybody remembers how you deleted the article about Flandrensis five minutes after I created it (without even bothering to reply to my message on your talkpage), but I believe that Wikipedia is not a suitable place to express your hatred and recoup on the quality of the articles, lighting of the facts and therefore, on the entire encyclopedia. Have a nice day. Escargoten (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that Lostisland's achievement deserves recognition here. If you don't like Micronations, Mr. Ckatz, then that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold. However, please refrain from trying to put that forward onto the Internet.

Also, just for your information: Just because it does not have a wikipedia article, does not mean that it is unimportant. St Peters Republic (User talk: St Peters Republic\talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by St Peters Republic (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the claim that I "hate micronations and micronationalism" is a load of rubbish... it reflects poorly on the person who posted it. --Ckatzchatspy 08:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to Lostisland clearly deserves to be let there. There are sources, photo sources, that Lostisland has actually visited it, so it clearly deserves attention. Cipika (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly see where Ckatz is coming from. I'm a micronationalist myself, but despite this I have to say that the edits made by Escargoten violates http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research, and that's something eligible for reverting. Case in point, you can't research your own micronational website for posting on Wikipedia. AuburnAttack21 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that since they have been there and have stated numerous times that they claim it, the sentence should be allowed on the page. The sentence said that Lostisland claimed the land, which they do. It doesn't say that "the land is owned by Lostisland", it states that it is claimed by them, which it is. I say keep the statement on the page. CaseyOHamlin (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that feel when so many micronationalists I know here--OCCullens (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, if somebody thinks more references are needed, you can include this one as well. The world map of micronations, made for the European Journal of Geography, clearly indicates that Hunter Island is claimed by Lostisland. Escargoten (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that several of the commentators here are low-volume accounts with limited scope. That doesn't negate their opinions, of course, but they should be taken in context. --Ckatzchatspy 09:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't negate the opinions, there was no reason for writing this your message. Or is it the only justification for deletion you have? Escargoten (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be logical. Notablity means in wikipedia that it should have reliable sources and random websites and blog aren't. Just because you all are his micronationalist friends, this don't mean you would destroy the rules of wikipedia. Rules are rules. Until it isn't in some reliable source. No matter how great work you did- if not in reliable sources, it wouldn't be in wikipeida. Wikipedia wouldn't be first reliable place to talk about you, it just collect already available data from reliable sources- as simple as that.

--Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the whole references for pages stuff on Wikipedia...--VarickWebbofSpanionte (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the above comment by Rawal of Jaisalmer. Despite references, the whole thing is simply not notable. Jeff in CA (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're literally trying to defend your point with appealing to a comment written over half a decade ago, and totally ignoring the sources added afterwards. There's no way you can reasonably say a French book, a national newspaper, a prominent think tank, as well as Hawaii Public Radio are "non notable random websites and blogs". Clearly this is nothing but a show of your personal negative attitude towards micronations and micronationalism in general. --Escargoten (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the edits, not the editor.
The sources are not convincing. We have two from Lotusland.org (so, not an independent reliable source), Two others are simply passing mentions, and even worse, appear to be dismissive of the claim. One says "Oh, I almost forgot: Hunter Island is also unofficially claimed by the micronation Republic of Lostisland... the likelihood of it impacting New Caledonian or Ni-Vanuatu claims is nil" and the other calls it a "quixotic effort[s] to establish a tax-free libertarian haven." I do not have access to the 2017 book sourced so I cannot comment on how the claim is covered there. The 2016 Vanuatu Daily Post coverage is interesting and in depth, but again does not take the claim very seriously. The title is "Internet Eccentrics On Expedition To Hunter Island" and points out that the 2012 expedition never actually landed on Hunter Island. It says that the project came out a defunct Russian gaming site and suggests this is an "absurdist satire of contemporary Russian society". For that matter, did the 2016 expedition ever even happen? A source discussing an expedition that had actually happened would be more credible than one talking about a group's claims of what they were going to do. Meters (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that mention of lostisland is totally WP:UNDUE. What secondary source has mentioned the claim as having any significance? Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested that the expedition landed on Hunter Island, which it did not, the 2012 expedition however did happen and even though they didn’t land on the Island, it was referenced in at least three independent sources all of which are present in Wikipedia as separate articles, meaning they clearly are notable enough. --Escargoten (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And removed again. Until there is consensus to include this information it should stay out. I've challenged the sources as being inadequate and Johnuniq agrees that this is undue. Meters (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually most users even back in 2012, when none of those sources were available, supported the addition. Is the book an inadequate source too? It has an entire section dedicated to Hunter Island and Lostisland's claim over it, Lostisland furthermore appears in this book, Hunter Island appears as claimed by micronation in this journal, the Japanese and the Esperanto Wikipedias have separate articles about Lostisland. It looks like you're simply willing to censor a reference to micronationalism which you most likely consider "unserious" per definition. --Escargoten (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing your contributions shows your only interest is the promotion of certain claims, since 2012. Some Wikipedia essays provide background on why such activity is not welcome: WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a specialist in micronations, it’s no wonder I contribute with stuff I’m familiar with and last I checked this wasn’t against the rules. As the guy above said – comment on the edits, not the editor.--Escargoten (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I too am interested in micronations. However, they are akin to the activities described at Society for Creative Anachronism#Kingdoms. One doesn't see disruptive edits to articles on the history of the Middle Ages because of them. Jeff in CA (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but if you compare micronations to SCA kingdoms this already points to your lack of competence of the matter, meaning that you shouldn't perhaps edit micronation-related articles at all.--Escargoten (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit micronation-related articles. I edit geography-related articles, which this is.Jeff in CA (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, rephrase it as "micronation-related sections". [Personal attack redacted]--Escargoten (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ho-ho! This is rich! What happened to "no offense"? I agree that mention of lostisland is totally WP:UNDUE. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the sources mentioned in above comments notable enough to deserve a small section in the article. Not sure how exactly the Vanuatu Daily Post is irrelevant or undue in this case(?).DenysTezdzhanenko (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — DenysTezdzhanenko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
As it is already said, I would like to question again why exactly the sources described wouldn't be acceptable in this very case. There are pictures of sailing, articles in other languages thus public exposure. There's no problem saying a geographic land has a clam by a micronation. Will Sn0w (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — Will Sn0w (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sources are not undue. We said the material in general was undue I gave my analysis of the Vanuatu Daily Post and the other sources above. Meters (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This info should definitely stay on here. In the era of Internet, any major kind of human activity has remarkable online branches, and building states and countries is anything but an exclusion. Wikipedia has articles about such micronations as Principality of Sealand and Republic of Molossia. The sole fact that Vanuatuan media, and even media of some other countries unrelated to these islands (which are really remote and were driven some recognition via Lostisland's statehood), prove that the information is following Wikipedia inclusion standards. Nowadays Lostisland is one of the major powers in the micronational world, so I find it absolutely essential to include the info about Lostisland into this article.--Joél be back (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know why we are suddenly seeing brand new accounts, or accounts with almost no previous edits suddenly appearing to defend the Lostisland content. DenysTezdzhanenko is a brand new account with zero previous edits, Will Sn0w was created in 2014 but has only made one previous edit, and Joél be back was created in 2014 but has only made 42 previous edits on English Wikipedia and only 3 in the last year. None of the three accounts has previously touched this article or any article concerning micronations. It's not appropriate to support article content because someone has asked (either directly or indirectly). If that's what's happening I suggest the users read WP:SPAPARTY.
As for the material, if Lostisland really is "one of the major powers in the micronational world" then I'm sure there will be no problem creating an article about Lostisland which has sufficient independent, reliable sources to show its notability. Once that's done we can mention the micronation claim here. Until then this joke or satire or "cultural and social project" (as Lostisland's own website describes it) does not belong on this page. Meters (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that one Denis Tezdzhan is listed on Lostisland's website as Prime Minister, suggesting that user:DenysTezdzhanenko either has a conflict of interest or is an impersonation account. Meters (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're literally suggesting if something doesn't have a separate article on Wikipedia about it, it doesn't deserve a mention at all. Sorry but if this was the case there'd be now sections or subsections on Wikipedia, everything would be in separate articles.--Escargoten (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested no such general rule, and I didn't imply it either. My statement referred only to this article, any possible article about Lostisland, and inclusion of Lostisland in this article. You incorrectly inferred that my statement was a general rule. Or perhaps since English is not your first language [1] you don't understand what literally means? Meters (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said "once this [a separate article about Lostisland] is done we can mention the micronation claim [...] until then this [...] doesn't belong on this page". You're suggesting just that, if something doesn't have a separate article it mustn't be mentioned at all and if you're implying this is only the case with Lostisland this is blatant hypocrisy from your part, perhaps you have some sort of problem with this entity.--Escargoten (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I suggested nothing about other articles. Again "My statement referred only to this article, any possible article about Lostisland, and inclusion of Lostisland in this article." You incorrectly inferred something. Meters (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and to quote yourself, User:Meters - comment on the edits, not the editor.--Escargoten (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning possible SPA or COIs is not a personal attack. It just informs other editors of potential concerns. Meters (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it's a personal attack, you did however suggest the contribution of those editors is untrustworthy because of their few edits and ironically when I suggested that someone is incompetent in micronationalism you did classify it as an attack.--Escargoten (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I simply pointed out SPAs and a possible COI, so that other editors can take it into account when making up their own minds about how much consideration to give those editor's opinions, as I am allowed to do.
That's not what I called a personal attack, which is why it is still on this page. What I did call a personal attack, and redacted, was something entirely different. it. I'm not wasting any more of my time on this. Meters (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new article on the subject has been released, with this new reference I'm sure there are more than enough sources to merit the inclusion of the section. Escargoten (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC) There's evidently no hope to reach a consensus here, I have no choice but to proceed to dispute resolution. Escargoten (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of Lost Island micronational claim[edit]

[2] They have made it to their island! They are planning to sail again in November of 2012. --VarickWebbofSpanionte (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matthew and Hunter Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the Federal Republic of Lostisland claim[edit]

Consensus for a short mention. Yes the sources aren't great as Meters has pointed out in their detailed analysis and some of the response to this analysis are bizarre. However there are a couple of reliable ones there. Reliable enough to trust that the information is correct and can fit in the article. So this really comes down to Undue, and that can include no mention at all. There is a 2:1 majority wanting a mention so a strong argument needs to be given to not include it. I don't feel that has been achieved and given the discussion below feel a small sentence (definitely no section) reflects the consensus here best. AIRcorn (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How much mention is the correct weight is the crux here and that can be nothing.

The Hunter Island is claimed by the Federal Republic of Lostisland, a micronation, which in 2012 undertook an expedition to the island. Over the last 6 years a discussion on whether this merits an inclusion to the article has been sporadically going on but no real consensus was ever reached. The independent sources mentioning the claim and/or the micronation are as following:

Are those sources sufficient to include the micronation reference to the article? Escargoten (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not. The material has been removed as WP:UNDUE, as several editors have recently said (myself, user:Johnuniq and user:Jeff in CA). Other editors have recently removed the material without mentioning UNDUE ( user:OpenToppedBus]], and user:Leodescal so there is no consensus to include it. It appears that the group of online gameplayers behind this have not even made a true micronation claim to the islands. Their website calls it a "cultural and social project" and the group does not claim to be a sovereign state and does not dispute anyone else's sovereignty. Any claim to the islands are symbolic. The quality of the sources is actually nearly irrelevant if the material is UNDUE, but let's look at them again.
The Forbes and Jones ref [3] is useless. It's an e-book for kids on how to design your own nation.
I've previously analyzed the Vanuatu Daily Post article [4]. That's the one that calls them eccentrics and the project itself an "absurdist satire of contemporary Russian society".
There's nothing new in the Asia Russia News blurb, except that they have supposedly issued stamps now. I have no idea how reliable that site is, but the rest of the content is just a rehash of all the same info.
As I said before, I don't have access to the 2017 book [5]. I have no idea what the level of coverage is or how seriously the claim is covered (if at all). Since the ref is only used to source "Hunter Island is symbolically claimed" it is unlikely to add anything to what we have from the other sources. Oh, and a worldcat lising is not a proper citation.
I've previously analyzed the Hawaii public radio mention [6]. The article is actually about the dispute between France and Vanuatu. It only mentions Lostisland in passing, dismissively as "one of those quixotic efforts to establish a tax-free libertarian haven".
I've previously analyzed the Cimsec source [7]. Like the Hawaii radio source, this only mentions Lostisland in passing and dismissively. "Oh, I almost forgot: Hunter Island is also unofficially claimed by the micronation Republic of Lostisland ... the likelihood of it impacting New Caledonian or Ni-Vanuatu claims is nil."
So, a kid's ebook and a web claim that they have published stamps have been added. So what? As I've said in December, I'm OK with including a brief mention of the claim here if the claim is notable enough to warrant a Wikiarticle. Until such an article is created the inclusion of the material in this article is WP:UNDUE,and appears to be an attempt to mention someone's pet project that isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Meters (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I’m seriously starting to suspect that you perhaps have a conflict of interest here, because of the way you word some of your arguments. Are you, by chance, an ex-member of Lostisland who has been removed for one or another reason?
You call them “online gameplayers”. This clearly isn’t the case, they arranged an expedition to this island which already disqualifies them as gameplayers, also if you take a look at their website or facebook page there are plenty of real-life activity going on.
You say the group doesn’t claim to be a sovereign state and doesn’t dispute anyone’s sovereignty. True, and I myself have made it clear in the proposed addition to the article, but what this has to do with notability?
The Forbes and Jones reference you brush away as “useless” because it’s a kids book. Again, how is this relevant? By this logic Postman Pat should he removed, considering he’s a children’s character.
The Vanuatu Daily Post article. You don’t like it because it calls them eccentrics. For real?! Even if they are, since when being eccentric equates to lack of notability?
Asia Russia Daily is reliable enough, it’s a registered Russian newspaper, but it seems like at this point you’d keep on insisting the issue is non-notable even if all the world’s media reported about Lostisland on their frontpage.
The French book has an entire section dedicated to Lostisland and Hunter Island. Do I need to upload a scan of the book for you to believe it or a content description on the editorial’s website would suffice?
The Hawaii Radio article is about France and Vanuatu, indeed, yet for some reason they found it appropriate to include a Lostisland reference – whether dismissively or not is secondary here, it was obviously notable enough to be mentioned on the broadcast.
Same about the Cimsec, if Lostisland is so unnotable, why did they mention it at all? The obvious answer is, because it warrants such mention, which together with the previous sources being supplied is even more obvious. And let’s be honest here, you say that you’d be okay with the mention if a separate article about Lostisland existed – which might I say is a dubious logic, plenty of information on Wikipedia exists in subsections only, without separate articles – yet you’d be the first person to nominate the article for deletion if it was ever created. Escargoten (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "significance"? Articles claiming that France and Vanuatu are now doomed because of Lostisland? This obviously is not going to happen, yet other micronations who have no more power in terms of defending their claim are somehow mentioned in Wikipedia. Escargoten (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This would be impossible, for the simple reason the Lostisland reference wasn't here when those publications were made. Escargoten (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I' don't believe I've ever said anything about an article on Lostisland. I've simply said that I don't believe the material needs to be mentioned in this article. For the third time, it is inappropriate for you to claim to know what I will do. Please redact that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 21:13, March 13, 2018 (UTC)
User:DrFleischman I wasn't suggesting that this would be used as a toehold to create an article. I object to what appears to be an attempt by an SPA to insert the content of a failed article into this article, so, yes, this does have a place in this discussion. I said that I might not objected to a short mention, and by that I mean something along the lines of one or at most two sourced sentences simply saying that it has been symbolically claimed by Lostisland. We don't need a picture, and we don't need to go into details about vague reports that someone was planning a visit two years ago. Meters (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC may be unnecessary then? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 2016 expedition didn't take place it seems. but the 2012 one did. Why, then, it shouldn't be mentioned? Escargoten (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Categories