Talk:Republic of Minerva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents 1 External Links 2 Promotional insertions 3 Verifiability 4 Photo 5 Size of the island 6 Fraud 7 200 mile coastline 8 Erosion?

[edit] External Links

I have corrected the edited the "promotional information" to correctly reflect the current history concerning the Minerva topic. Whether it is liked or not (not saying that I do), the "Principality" has demonstrated serious intention, and has exercised authority against Minerva "spoofs." Further, this latest project has been featured in various print and broadcast publications that are not affiliated with them directly, providing some measure of reference. If it was simply made up, that'd be one thing, but this group has been around for some years and has been published several times. 68.143.5.138 15:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC) III

I have restored the link Minervan Coin maliciously deleted by Gzornenplatz. The URL links to a website owned and managed by me that is recognised and widely cited by numismatic groups and publishers, including the publisher of Australasian Coin and Banknote Review Magazine (Aust) and Krause Publications (US), publishers of Unusual World Coins as representing the only comprehensive online source of information concerning the 1973 coin issue by Minerva. The link is obviously relevant to this article.--Gene_poole 00:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I put that link in not knowing it had anything to do with Gene Poole, I just came across it using Google. So its removal was unintentional vandalism. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think if you look at the derogatory comment Gzornenplatz appended to his/her link removal attempt you will see that that it constituted deliberate vandalism. --Gene_poole 12:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The link is inappropriate (see Talk:Hutt River Province) even if in this case it wasn't Gene Poole who put it in originally. How such an inclusion dispute would be vandalism, intentional or otherwise, remains for you to explain. Gzornenplatz 12:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

My father was involved in the Republic of Minerva project, and I will try to find out any additional information I can to add on. Tony Jonick

I am extremely disappointed to see that that genuine, verifiable information regarding the "Principality" and its recent activities was arbitrarily deleted, and that searches for the "Principality" are now diverted back to the of "Republic" page (with its silly numismatic disputes). To add insult to injury, the modifier(s?) then alleged some sort of "fraud". If any "fraud" was committed, it was perpetrated by those (vandals? censors?) who removed the fair and non-biassed information about the Principality, and also redirected the "Principality" page incorrectly back to the "Republic" page.

Previously, I had relied on Wikipedia as a valid source for information (for my research and radio commentary, etc. as well as for personal use). What I have learned from this experience is that, in certain areas (such as current events and foreign affairs), Wikipedia probably should no longer be considered a reliable source for unbiased information, since valid contributions can easily be removed by those who have more time to monitor and control what remains there. Anyone with "too much time on their hands" can easily distort or suppress what 'e does not like; ergo, subjectivity triumphs over objectivity, and Wikipedia becomes useles for any topic about which there may be controversy (or axes to grind!)

Having more important things to do than pepetually lurk (and fight those who remove valid additions), I don't expect to monitor this "discussion". However, I would welcome any serious comments/arguments via email to me at "mailto:bam@wusb.fm" . Tripodics 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional insertions

Would the person currently adding unverifiable promotional information to this artice stop doing so. At best "Prince Calvin" is a tiny footnote to the story of Minerva, and his "claim" cannot be either verified or enforced. He is also not the only current non-Tongan/Fijian "claimant" to Minerva. The flag also not the correct historic flag, and seems to be a recent concoction. --Gene_poole 22:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am adding the most recent information that is available and is, as per posted media references, verifiable. At the least, the Principality project is relavent simply because it is the most recent and strongest group to make a claim. Yes, there have been others, and the Principality has actually injoined some of those groups against use of the name. Which other group has a claim as strong as these people? The matter of legality and right or wrong as it concerns actual possession and matters of international law is up to courts to decide, not us. In addition to media reference and recognition, the Principality retains a pending US service mark on the name. All of that information is verifiable. As per your standard, Gene Pool, you require 2 print sources, and this group meets the standard. Allow the information to be heard, whether you agree with it or not. Not that I necessarily agree with these guys, but it is relavent. Thanks. 68.59.43.124 22:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC) III

The "principality group" is not the most recent claimant, and until such time as they do more than write about themselves in Wikipedia their claim effectively has no more nor less substance than those of any other claimant. The media reports serve only to verify the group's existence - not confirm its claims. Unless further sources come to light we must assume that the "principality" is basically a website run by a 20-year-old US university student - because that is the only information in the public domain on the subject. --Gene_poole 01:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct in asserting that the Principality group is not the most recent claimant, however I would venture to say that it is the most consistent and well grounded - they even possess a letter from Mr. Oliver stating his desire to no longer be affiliated. That seems to be pretty strong evidence, evidence that can be obtained simply for the asking. You are correct, media sources verify the groups existance - the main bone of contention thus far. So from now on we shall consider their existance verified. As far as sources confirming claim, that is an issue to be decided by greater international bodies, such as the ICJ. When those organizations render a judgement of one manner or another, then the group's "claim" can be "confirmed." We have no obligation, authority or capacity to render whether a claim can be confirmed, as it is a question of international law. Any issue beyond than that, such as whether the group is to be taken seriously or to be brushed off as "some 20-year-old university student that has set up a website" should be a decision made by the reader, not us. Where does it state the age of the leader, anyways? I've seen no date. But the fact that the group has taken it this far for this long is of some marginal value. Thanks for the discussion! 68.59.43.124 03:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) III

Please explain how adding recent and verified, as we have established previously, is vandalism. On the contrary, you are the vandal, as you are restricting free access to real, verified information to suit your own view. That is the true vandalism. 68.59.43.124 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)III

[edit] Verifiability

I distinctly recall reading some months ago a news report on the Minerva "principality's" website about "Prince Calvin" celebrating his 20th birthday. This reference has now, strangely, disappeared. This leaves us with almost no verifiable information about the "principality", leaving us to assume that it is largely, if not wholly, an ephemeral online project. --Gene_poole 21:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been researching the subject of micronations for over the past semester for a sociology thesis. To be precise, according to my research, he's 25, not that it matters - age assertions seems to be unverifiable. There is quite a bit of information out there, but it seems to be of no real concern here - all it takes is a little active research. So I guess we'll just chalk the whole phenomenon up to some sap getting online kicks, like so many other online micronational movements without legitimate territory.Minervan 21:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been researching the subject for over 2 decades, and I'm very familiar with people who make ludicrous claims that are unsupported by such troublesome details as hard evidence. It goes with the territory. Until sources showing something more about the "principality" that the fact that it exists emerge, we must assume it is an ephemeral creation. --Gene_poole 01:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Simply define your standards. What would actually be good enough, and why is it good enough, and how is that standard fair? Thats all I want to know. Minervan 04:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"My standards" are not the issue here, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Statements can either be supported by verifiable third party sources or they can't. In this case, they can't. --Gene_poole 05:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There are verifiable third party sources for the Principality, about which you said "The media reports serve only to verify the group's existence - not confirm its claims." You are, without doubt, exactly right. The only way that they can "confirm claims" is through international arbitration (assuming Tonga abides) or to fight a war over it. Minervan 14:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There is one verifiable third party source for the "Principality of Minerva", which tells us that some sort of entity, or person using that name exists. There is no way of verifying anything else at all about it. Even the "principality's" own website - which is the only other source of information - says nothing of value on the subject. There is no list of official contacts, no location details, postal address or phone numbers, no full names of alleged members and no photographs of alleged members and/or their aleged activities. This strongly suggests that the "principality" is largely ephemeral. --Gene_poole 22:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

This article really needs a photo of the 'island', not least to prove that it actually exists. Can anyone provide a picture please? --kingboyk 22:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• You could get permission to use this photo: http://www.minervanet.org/minerva/images/official_03.gif

Why? What's it a photograph of? --Gene_poole 03:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• • It's a picture of the island of Minerva. This is an article about it, why shouldn't there be a picture of it?

Is there some proof of this claim? --Gene_poole 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering several ships have wrecked on the reef and islets, it would seem to be real. As far as the picture being real, has anyone asked?

What on earth is the above sentence supposed to mean? Could we have an English translation please? Aside from that, the picture in question seems to have been removed from the Minerva website, so it's probably a moot point. --Gene_poole 23:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume that the above sentence is addressing two points. The first question of "...prove that it actually exists" is addressed in the statement, "several ships have wrecked on the reef..."; the statement then addresses whether or not the image has been verified with the website as being of the area or not. Hope that suffices as a decent translation. -- wiki user

[edit] Size of the island

Does anyone know how large the island is?

[edit] Fraud

"The Principality" is a fraud, I spoke to a "representative" from the website the other day, he told me that Michael Oliver is "old and tired" and "just wants to live out the rest of his days in peace". He told me that he said that they can "do what they want with Minerva", but how is this so? I read a recent interview on Michael Oliver that contradicts what was said to me, he is still trying to start soverign nations in the pacific, therefore the "Principality" is nothing but a sham as ar as I'm concerned. Source

"The Principality" makes Mr. Michael Oliver seem like a frail old man that just wants peace for the rest of his days as stated on their website, but take a look at this, an explicit contradiction! Let's take their website off, nothing but a fraud, and the "Prince" celebrating his 20th birthday is laughable, I saw it as well, but it was removed for some reason.

It's a libertarian project, not about any "Principality", he is just a sham looking for attention. I have a Yahoo! Group setup for the REAL Republic of Minerva, I don't *claim* to be anything, but yes, I am launching a website soon that will represent The Republic, will also solicit new citizenry, and will conduct diplomacy with other micronations.

It's currently being coded by a team of webdesigners I hired, I hope to finally overshadow these scam artists with the real movement, I plan on resurrecting what the *real* Minerva was about, it was about libertarianism, it was about freedom, it was about no taxation, not about any "Principality" sham.

The government will be as small as possible to run efficiently as possible, we will find the old citizenry so that they can join go help out, we will essentially recreate what was lost back in 1972 and 1982, or it might end up being another thing entirely as nations do change, but I know it won't ever be a "Principality", that is almost the *opposite* that Michael Oliver envisioned from a libertarian paradise.

Let's create a separate article for them, "Minerva Resurrectionist Groups", they don't even have a government, they don't accept citizenry, so they don't fit the definition of a micronation in the first place. Crud3w4re 06:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 200 mile coastline

Minerva is more than 200 miles away from Tonga. Isn't there a rule that countries can only claim the area up to 200 miles off their coastline? How did that apply here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.144.74 (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Erosion?

Is it possible that islands have eroded away, so that they are just reefs like they were before 1972? I can't find Minerva on Google Earth and both the pictures at Minerva Reefs make it seem like the land is submerged at high tide. Chuckos 21:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)