Talk:Conch Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Florida, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the State of Florida on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

Contents

[edit] Image

Someone removed the image of the Conch shell – too bad, I really liked it. This article was definitely livened up by the image, and perhaps we can keep it until we get permission to use the Conch republic flag? --Ilya 21:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How long did it exist?

If I'm reading the article right, the Conch Republic only existed for one (1) minute. Is this correct? If so, it should be made explicit in the introduction. Otherwise, the duration of the country's existence should be mentioned in the intro. -Lommer | talk 23:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it has never stopped existing. They maintain a website, sell memorabilia, flags, coins, passports etc, and organise an annual celebration of the "secession" in the Florida Keys.--Gene_poole 23:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think having memorabilia constitutes existing. RJFJR 17:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Although they surrendered to US Forces one minute after declaring independance the United States Government has never taken any action to disband the Conch Republic like they have in previous... erm... Conflicts. Removing the existance of a govermental body is usualy dictated in terms of Surrender and the Acceptance there of. Furthermore in the Invasion of 95 the United States Army Recognized the Sovrenity of the Conch Republic and surrendered to it in September of 95. IMHO that plus the fact their passports are recognized outside of the US plus the fact they have Embassy's in other nations is grounds to say that it defenatly exists. China dosen't recognize Taiwan yet most the world recognizes it as a nation. ~Vince Novak

[edit] Existance & Image

1. I pulled the reqimage tag: someone's put up a conch flag for us already.

2. The Conch Republic still exists: they had merely "surrendered" to the U.S. 1 minute after the declaration.

History

Cwolfsheep 02:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Imaginary"

I removed the adjective "imaginary" from the lead paragraph. As it is an actual place, and the notion of a "Conch Republic" is based in actual historical events, this seems the wrong adjective to me. -- Infrogmation 13:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Proposed isn't any better, that means it would be in the future. How about defunct? Existed once but doesn't any more? RJFJR 17:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Proposed" is no good. I think "imaginary" is fine, since it never really existed in any serious way. Even the people involved really didn't think they were actually seceeding from the Union. --JW1805 19:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It is neither imaginary nor proposed. I've rewritten the intro paragraph to more succinctly clarify this. --Gene_poole 22:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
"Mock" is the proper adjective. Does anybody believe that their tongues were not firmly in their cheeks? They pretty much followed the script of The Mouse That Roared.--BillFlis 13:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, "mock" is good. But "...as a serious protest motivated by frustration over genuine concerns" just sounds too apologetic. I've removed that qualifier; the History section speaks for itself. Melchoir 22:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Mock is fine with me. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Micronation

(I'm pasting this into the talk page of all the micronation category articles.)

I've just started a template for the micronation infobox, based on the Sealand box. I've also written usage guidelines on it's talk page. I'd like to please invite any interested people to go over its talk page to discuss the template itself, along with my guidelines. As a demo of the template, please see Lovely (micronation), which I just edited to use the template. --Billpg 23:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This template is unnecessary for this article. It isn't a "real" micronation. And who's to say what the area and membership numbers should be. Is that the Key West info, or all the FL Keys? --JW1805 (Talk) 03:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The Conch Republic is a micronation. The term "real micronation" is a contradiction in terms. No micronation is "real". The micronation infobox template was developed for use in micronation articles, ergo, removing it from this article is inappropriate. --Gene_poole 04:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The Conch Republic was a mock secession protest, that is currently used as a tourism draw. I'm no expert on the subject, but it seems like for a "real" micronation, there exists at least somebody who thinks it is real (like Sealand, for example). That is not the case here. There never was, and there is not currently, anyone who believes this. That is why the adjective "mock" (which was agreed to by concensus) is in the opening sentence. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's purely a tourist thing now, and it was a publicity thing when declared. The "micronation infobox" is wholely misleading and does not belong. Jonathunder 04:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Micronations are entites that purport or pretend to be sovereign states but aren't. Pretty simple concept. It doesn't matter if it's a "tourist thing" or a bunch of armed nutters shooting up the Feds; the Conch Republic is a micronation, ergo, removing the infobox is inappropriate, factually incorrect and misleading. --Gene_poole 05:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It does matter that they don't actually pretend what you claim they pretend. Let the article tell the full story and leave the infobox with its misleading claims off this. Jonathunder 05:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
And therein lies your logical problem. They do actually pretend to claim what the infobox states they pretend to claim. --Gene_poole 05:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if it's a joke, whatever can be meant by "joke", actions taken in the name of the entity as recently as this year suggest that the idea is not dead. The micronation page includes "exercises in fantasy" as a category of micronation.

Micronationalism is inherently dubious, and it is that awkward dubiousness that fascinates and encourages some and incurs the belittling and disenfranchising wrath of others.

But the bottom line is that whether or not the Conch Republic is serious or not doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it qualifies as a micronation. Having formed a flag, stamps, a head of state and cabinet (however small) and taking actions in its name, it satisfies a good number of objective criteria one could reasonably come up with for what is itself an amorphous concept.

Johnathan, if you could point to the NPOV source for the criteria upon which you make your determination, it would be helpful to the discussion. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is unnecessary for this article. For goodness sake, what about the "Membership: 24,768"? That's the whole population of Key West! Does that imply that everyone there considers themselves citizens of this fake nation? The Membership stat makes sense at Sealand, but makes no sense here. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The micronation infobox BELONGS on micronation articles. Why should this ONE article be the exception? Please either provide a logical justification or verifiable references to support your position. --Gene_poole 05:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, the membership field should contain the approximate number of people who freely identify themselves as citizens. --Billpg 09:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree, the "micronation" infobox is completely misleading in that regard, and gives far to much weight to that POV. GP keeps adding this, but there is no consensus for that. Jonathunder 04:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you should actually read the infobox, and take note that a majority of editors support it's retention before instigating an edit war to satisfy your peculiar unreferenced POV on this subject. --Gene_poole 04:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Read this very page, please. Everyone above in this discussion is saying your box misleads. And by giving disporportionate weight to the "micronation" theory, it in not NPOV. As anyone who has actually been to the place will tell you, locals don't call this a micronation. Jonathunder 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Read this very page, please. There a 3 editors who have clearly enunciated opinions that support the retention of the infobox, and 2, including yourself, who do not. Those who do not are proposing the highly eccentric notion that the Conch Republic is, despite being well known as one of the world's longest-lived micronations, somehow, magically, not a micronation. They have, furthermore, supplied precisely no references to support this proposition. As it is incumbent upon those seeking to modify articles to produce references in support of non-mainstream positions, the default position is that the infobox stays until you do so. Please do not make further unsupported POV changes to this article. --Gene_poole 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Like I said above, the infobox makes sense for Sealand, but makes no sense for the "Conch Republic". I ask again, what is the population of this imaginary republic? Also, the "location" is uncertain (usually used for tourism purposes as Key West, but at the time the "sucession" was for all the Florida Keys). And Wardlow certainly isn't the Mayor anymore......is he still head of the Republic? Do you see why an infobox makes no sense here? --JW1805 (Talk) 05:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the infobox, as there is neither a consensus for it's removal, nor any supporting references supporting the hypothesis that the Conch Republic is not a micronation. A Google search of "Chonch Republic" + "mock republic" - wikipedia generates zero results. Asserting that it is a "mock republic" therefore is in contravention to WP:OR. --Gene_poole 00:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  • No, it isn't OR. It's just plain English. "Mock" as in "made-up", "not real", "fake", "not serious". All sources acknowledge this. To lump the "Conch Republic" in with Sealand is ludicrous. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you're all for including an infobox even though virtually every piece of information in it is wrong?

  • Location: Key West. The original protest secession was the entire Florida Keys. However, the current tourist slogan us generally only used for Key West. But this infobox is for the "Micronation"!
  • Area claimed: 15.4 km Is that Key West, or all the Keys?
  • Membership: unknown That's pretty lame. Any explanation for this for readers? Who can legitimately be called a citizen of a made-up entity?
  • Leadership: Prime Minister Dennis Wardlow Source for this? He isn't the Mayor anymore? Does he still lead the fake republic?
  • Language: English Source for this?

Once again, every one of these items have pretty well established values for an entity like Sealand. But not for the Conch Republic. Thus, the infobox is unnecessary and misleading for this article. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Every piece of information" in it is perfectly fine. Maybe you should do some research on the subject. Then perhaps you'd find that Denis Wardlow is in fact still the "Prime Minister" and the main language spoken in the Florida Keys is English. You'd probably also discover that there are plenty of micronations with "unknown" populations, for the simple reason that no verifiable sources exist to provide reliable confirmation - and that includes Sealand, incidentally. You also seem to not understand the difference between " membership" and "citizenship". --Gene_poole 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Even though I've brought it up three times.....you're never responded to my question about the Area and Location fields. They are for the island of Key West only. Is this correct for the micronation of the Conch Republic? --JW1805 (Talk) 04:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Why else do you think I keep restoring it? Please research this subject before posting further comments. It's not possible to hold a rational discussion otherwise. And please do not use false edit summaries - there is NO consensus to include your original research in this article, and as I've already pointed out multiple times there isn't even a single identifiable reference or a single Google result supporting your hypothesis. --Gene_poole 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC).
I am not using false edit summaries. See the section above ("Imaginary"), where a concensus was reached that "mock" was the proper adjective. You are being pedantic about this. As I stated above, "mock" is used in the sense of "not real" or "not serious", which all sources agree are properly used to describe the "Conch Republic". Do you disagree with this? Also, you have yet to respond to my concerns about the data listed in the infobox you keep inserting. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Check out this Google search [1]. "Mock" is clearly used to describe this event! I don't see how you can maintain that this word is "original research". --JW1805 (Talk) 18:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Orlando Sentinel: "The mock Conch Republic..." , "The mock government..." [2]
  • St. Augustine Record: "...this island city's mock secession from the United States..." [3]
  • Destination360.com: "...this independently minded island proclaimed itself The Conch Republic in a mock secession in the 1980s" [4]

Jonathunder: Which method did you use to determine Consensus? - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be a couple of people trying to say Conch isn't a micronation, and removing or severely modifying things like the infobox, which say otherwise. Personally I can't see why anyone would want to take that position, but it's a moot point anyway, because Lonely Planet have confirmed that Conch Republic is included in this new travel guide. If Lonely Planet says its a micronation, then as far as I'm concerned, it's a micronation. --Centauri 06:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

With the last series of edits, this article now contradicts itself:

"Unlike splinter groups such as the Republic of Texas, the Conch Republic has never formally declared its independence from the United States"

and

"as a form of protest Mayor Dennis Wardlow and the Council declared the independence of the Conch Republic"

Someone who knows a bit more about the topic than I should fix this. MiraLuka 22:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction. The ROT people aren't tongue-in-cheek, whereas the Conch Republic is. Adding inverted commas around "independence" may clarify this. --Gene_poole 03:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think either the former sentence should go (what does it contribute, anyway?), or "formally declared" needs to be defined. I think GP is saying that while ROT have submitted documents of secession to the USG (see the ELs), Conch has not. Certainly ROT (all of them) takes itself more seriously than Conch; but this is a relative distinction, not an absolute one. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the ROT reference a while back. The ROT is a real separatist group. The "Conch Republic" is a tourism slogan. To compare the degree of formality of their secessions from the Union is just silly. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you have a reason to arbitrarily argue that, other than your own opinion... - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It just isn't useful of meaningful to compare the two. The Conch Republic was a mock secession protest (which is fully described in the article). The ROT folks are real separatists. It would be like saying in the article "Unlike the Iraq insurgency, the Conch Republic has never taken hostages." I just don't see the point of such a comparison. And comparing the degree of "formality" of the secession also doesn't really make much sense. You could also say "Unlike South Carolina in the 1861, the Conch Republic did not hold a Secession Convention or a referendum on secession". Of course they didn't, because one was real, and the other was fake. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conch Republic = micronation

The taxonomy of micronations is clear and unequivocal - they are entities which resemble sovereign states but are not. Claiming that in order for an entity to be a micronation it must be a "serious" secession is spurious original research, and is not borne out by historical reality or third party sources. The micronation article lists numerous examples of such "tongue in cheek" micronations, and the Conch Republic is certainly nothing special in that regard.

Furthermore, numerous third party sources identify the Conch Republic as a micronation, including Google, Best of the Web, Flags of the World, the Micronations Page, the Unrecognised States Numismatic Society , the Etymology & the Virtual World and Expat World, to name a few.

Therefore, I've restored both the micronation infobox and references to the Conch Republic as a micronation to this article accordingly. --Gene_poole 00:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, these aren't exactly the most reputable sources. I cited articles from legitimate newspapers that described the entity as "mock". But that isn't he point here. The article already had a mention that some people call the CR a "micronation". Your argument that therefore, it must have an infobox is what I disagree with. Isn't it possible that the infobox is not appropriate for a "tongue in cheek" "micronation" such as this one? --JW1805 (Talk) 19:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to argue that any number of authoritative sources accepted by most of the world (including Wikipedia) as being reliable and accurate are not reliable, or that the Conch Republic is somehow the sole historical exception to otherwise internationally accepted taxonomies and standards of nomenclature then please provide some evidence in support of this position. In other words, if you wish to argue that the accepted terminology for desribing unrecognised statelike entities is in fact "mock republic" rather than "micronation", then the onus is on you to come up with the evidence - and no, a couple of passing mentions desrcibing an event as opposed to the subject of the event in a couple of minor local newspapers does not constitute anything even remotely substantive in that regard. In the absence of evidence, or even of a cogent argument to that end I'm reverting to the last NPOV version of this article. This odd business of trying to stick unsubstantiated, POV original research into this article has gone on for long enough IMHO. --Gene_poole 04:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The article currently says some call it a micronation. That's accurate, and certainly more NPOV than saying it IS a micronation even if no one who lives there calls it one. And please don't add back a silly box which says the entire population is part of a micronation of which the former mayor is Prime Minister. Jonathunder 18:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Gene Pool, you must work with other editors to achieve a consensus. Your views are not the standard by which we base article content. So far, two editors agree with the current version (Jonathunder and I). You disagree with it. You don't seem to be reading the comments of other editors. "Mock" isn't even in the article anymore. The current into says:
The Conch Republic was declared as a tongue-in-cheek protest secession of the Florida Keys from the United States on April 23, 1982. It has been maintained as a tourist promotion since then, and is sometimes called a micronation.

It seems pretty NPOV to me. It does say that it is called a micronation. You keep accusing us to inserting POV and OR into the article...but I don't know what you are talking about. If you would actually respond to my questions and concerns instead of making prouncements about how you are right and we are wrong, it would be better, I think. And incidently, no, I don't consider eZines and obscure German websites to be as reputable as AP articles. Interestingly, FOTW calls it a "short-lived micronation". --JW1805 (Talk) 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So far 3 editors have supported the retention of the infobox and 2 have not, so there is no consensus for it's continued removal by those supporting the minority view. Aside from which the 2 opposed to its inclusion have consistently failed to provide a cogent rationale for removing it, and one of those is now making allegations concerning the content of the infobox that is demonstrably wrong - possibly deliberately so - by stating that it contains information that is not actually there. I'm reverting accordingly. --Gene_poole 03:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
After reading the comment "Delete. I guess they can't all be the Conch Republic" in a VfD debate for a micronation, it's become clear that the Conch Republic is one of the most notable, biggest micronations out there in public reputation. If any articles should have that box, this should be one of them. Wiwaxia 05:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gene asked me to take a look at the debate and article, as a micronation-interested non-enthusiast (fun subject to read about, but I'm not invoved in it at all). I've helped out with WP MN articles in the past, though not so much this year.

As I see it, there are two issues in play;

  1. How accurately does and should the article reflect the Conch Republic's not-terribly-serious real life status.
  2. Should there be a infobox here.

I think that the second is obvious. The Conch Republic is, clearly, in the greater inclusive category of micronations. Quite a number of other micronations aren't serious attempts to set up legitimate new countries or extraterritorial areas. Some of them have been quite silly. Micronation as a category spans from the silly to the mock (where i think Conch fits) to not really serious to legitimate aspirant mini-states, such as Hutt River Province and Sealand. The infobox isn't the "aspirant state" infobox, it's the "micronation" infobox, and is applicable from the pure jokes, to the mock states, to the quite seriously pseudo-legitimately independent ones. If there should be an Apirant State infobox to supplement or replace the micronation box for Sealand and Hutt, then do one, but trying to strip the one off here seems poorly justified.

Regarding whether the article currently accurately reflects the essentially mock nature of the Conch Republic... I'm not sure that "mock" is better than "toungue-in-cheek", or visa versa. They both convey the same core information in the dictionary denotation sense here; "mock" is slightly more skeptical connotation, "toungue-in-cheek" more lighthearted. I think that stating that not having "mock" in there is some sort of fatal accuracy flaw is silly - you're arguing about a slight slant in point of view. Neither word is truly neutral.

Are there other sections which people believe are in dispute as to the accuracy of the description? I haven't read the article in six months; I just went through and did, and my impression of the current version (Gene's with infobox and "toungue-in-cheek") accurately describes what I understand the facts are regarding Conch. I don't think the article leaves a naive reader with any sort of false impression that these people in Key West actually intend to secede for real, or tried to for real. Ultimately, I think that's the most important thing... what is a naive reader, who has no experience in the subject area, going to come away with. I think the article, viewed from a neutral and naive standpoint, is just fine right now. Nor does it contain misleading information from a micronation-educated reader point of view. Georgewilliamherbert 18:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • "Toungue-in-cheek" or "Mock" are both fine with me. I think the problem is that Gene Pool thinks that both terms are wild original research. The infobox has information that is incorrect or uncertain for the Conch Republic. I suggest some sort of truncated version [5] if one is necessary at all. "Micronation" is a recent neologism, and is not a commonly used term in the general public. It needs to be clearly spelled out that this isn't real (especially since some people have bought these "passports" thinking they are valid!). I added the qualifier in the opening (a fantasy country not recognized by any other nation) to clarify. Of course, all was reverted by Gene Poole, so I reverted back. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Famly

The additon of royal famy and Duke Brandon Angel have been removed as verification has not been provided and I can not find any. If some one can (find support for these claims) please revert my removal.--blue520 06:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scam Warning

The Conch republic and associated websites are clearly a scam. A group of individuals profit from selling passports to people who are mislead into paying money for fake travel documents.

Okay, then leave that for this talk page or make an appropriate subheading on the page where you explain that viewpoint in an unbiased tone. That does not include referring to their passports as "souvenirs" for "useless citizenship". Omicronpersei8 (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The passports are clearly not recognized travel documents, so the heading souvenir is entirely approprite. The consulates are not recognized by any of the countries in which they are located. No country recognizes conch republic and do not allow the appoinment of a consul. The consulates are not offical and should be stated as such and not follow a website which is clearly a scam.

An entity called the Conch Republic exists, so calling it a scam is wrong. --Centauri 10:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no such entity. The whole thing is a tourist draw, now. Passing off passports for the CR as having any kind of status certainly would be scam. Wikipedia should not mislead people into thinking this is somehow real.

How can you say there is no such entity but then claim it is a tourist draw? Logically, if it doesn't exist then it can't be a tourist draw. Where does it say the passports have official status? It actually says they have no official status several times. I maybe think you're slightly confused here. --Centauri 23:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The IDEA is maintained an promoted, tounge-in-cheek, to bring in tourists. There is no such actual entity, however.
Of course there is. It's called a micronation. From everything I can see it's also more than likely a registered business run by the "Secretary General" too. --Centauri 23:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Any number of businesses make and sell CR stuff. Are all of them micronations? Nobody has a monopoly on the idea.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. The Conch Republic is a micronation. Micronations are by their nature largely conceptual (ie an "idea") If people use it to make money so what? That doesn't mean it doesn't exist - in fact it means the exact opposite. It's got nothing to do with the city of Key West, apart from the fact it was founded by a former serving mayor, so why should the city get any money? --Centauri 01:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micronation infobox

Please do not make unilateral changes to the format of the micronation infobox without first reaching a consensus on the appropriate talk page. --Gene_poole 02:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, much of the info in the Infobox is incorrect, or irrelevant or uncertain for the Conch Republic....hence my changes. The only article that actually uses that template is Lovely. Entries like "membership: unknown" and "purported organizational structure: Republic" are silly here. (Is the Conch Republic really a Republic? They don't hold elections, do they? There is that one guy on the Internet who proclaims himself "Secretary General"...)--JW1805 (Talk) 03:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The information is not incorrect, and the micronation infobox template is used currently on nearly 30 articles. Please don't make deliberately misleading statements to try to promote your POV original reasearch on this subject, particularly as there is a strong consensus opposing your changes. --Gene_poole 04:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
There is one and only one article that links to the template. It is Lovely (micronation). You are again acusing me of promoting POV.....what exactly are you talking about? Please specifically indicate what you think I am doing that is POV. Where is the consensus that the "Musical Anthem" of the Conch Republic is "tba"? Where is the consensus that the area should be Key West only and not all the Keys? It's difficult to work with you if you don't ever really respond to my concerns about the article content.--JW1805 (Talk) 05:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The box had a number of errors in it, compared with statements on the Conch website, which I've fixed. --Centauri 06:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reality

This article needs more informaiton about exactly what this entity is in "reality". There is a website, and the content is copyright by "Sir" Peter Anderson. It sells various items, who gets the money (Anderson? Key West?) The article mentions "the group" in various contexts, what does this mean exactly? Who is running the "consulates"? What, if any, affiliation does this have with the City of Key West? --JW1805 (Talk) 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The website is one promotion run by one guy. Guess who gets the profits--it's not the city. Any number of other businesses also promote the CR idea, and they all make a profit if they can, too.
Why would the city get any profits? It's got nothing to do with the city. If you ran a business in your town would you give the profits to your city council? --Centauri 01:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Business? I am unsure what exactly "SIR" Andersons business is? The web is littered with people complaining that they have purchased passports and then realized they are useless. A US consulate has even issued a warning on these things. The main income from his website is clearly passports which are no doubt sold to people whose first language is not english. The souvenirs redirects to a different page.

Please read "Sir" andersons website with a ten year old. Or take a look at the consulates which sell passports and tell me where the warning is? There is no in your face warning anywhere, this guy is clearly ripping people off and more needs to be stated on the article page that for the most part the site selling passports is a scam.

I can imagine if peter anderson was selling his passports through google adwords they would shut his account down in no time. If you look you will see that no bank outside of the USA will deal with him as it has shut down that part of his operations. Even PayPal has gone cold on him. Unfortunatly money orders and the like are not really stoppable except at an individual level.

Sir peter anderson is clearly benfiting from the conch republic as he has purchased the domain name conchrepublic.com and sells passorts to desperate people who think they will give them access to the USA.

There definatly needs to be a more prominent warning to the problems that this one individual and his website are causing.

Any 10 year-old would be able to tell that the Conch Republic is a joke, particularly after reading their FAQ - which you don't seem to have done. It states:
Q: Are you serious about being your own country?
A: We are very serious about being funny and we try to be funny when we are being serious.
Q: Can I travel on my Conch Republic passport?
A: We do not represent our passports as valid travel documents.
So, let's cut down on the scam hysteria, OK? --Centauri 02:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation here: those of you who are concerned about the 'reality' of the Conch Republic should really stop being so anxious about this mythical thing called 'reality' and let it go. This isn't a life or death struggle. This is real life, which is about having a good time and being able to play well with others. Remember, English is a play of words, it isn't (thank goodness) this overly-technical language where everything has one, ultimate meaning, with truth and falseness being the only two realities. Life is about being sloppy and getting dirty; it isn't about being perfect. I wish Wikipedia could have more entries like this; it would make it less dreary and less literal :) So have fun, genties and ladlemen; be creative, make mistakes, treat wikipedia like a puzzle, not some truth-or-false contest.

[edit] What is disputed?

There is a disputed tag on this article. Exactly what is being disputed? RJFJR 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is disputed, although there is one user who keeps trying to make changes that are at odds with available reference sources. I'm removing the tag accordingly. --Centauri 21:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't past tense be used?

I would say it's best to refer to it in the past tense. They surrendered after a minute. It was a micronation for one minute. Would it be better to start the article off with "Conch Republic was a micronation? This would be more technically correct. After all, the people who live and work there pay federal income tax as well as Florida State sales tax. If was currently a true micronation, they wouldn't be paying taxes to the federal government or to Florida.
Marc Averette 13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Once again, this is another example of why staring off the article using the neologism "micronation" is confusing to most readers. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I propose the following opening section:
The Conch Republic was declared as a tongue-in-cheek protest secession of the Florida Keys from the United States on April 23, 1982. Sometimes called a "micronation", it has been maintained as a tourist promotion since then.

Every word is true, and it seems less confusing. There seems to be a lot of confusing caused by saying "The Conch Republic is a micronation". 99% of people just aren't familar with that term. Using the first sentence to explain exactly what this is in words makes more sense. And the infobox can stay. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JW completely here. Jonathunder 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Word. I also think there's confusion about the very concept of a micronation. Maybe the Conch Republic wasn't a "real" micronation, but what the hell is? No micronation is legitimate or recognized by any country. The only difference here is that other micronation declarers are usually serious, as in Sealand, while this was always a joke protest (of course I know of a few people in Key West who are deadly serious about their "country".)--Cúchullain t/c 17:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just changing "is" to "was" will make every word correct. No need to distort. Marc Averette 17:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We've had this argument before. There's no need to rake over the same old nonsense again. It's a matter of basic taxonomy. That the Conch Republic is a micronation is a fact that has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. It is referred to as such throughout the world, and is probably the best known micronation in the world after Sealand. It is demonstrably of a type with every other micronation in existence. It has also been listed in the recently published Lonely Planet Guide to Micronations. If the world's biggest travel publisher calls the Conch Republic a micronation, then it's a micronation - not something else which "some people" call a micronation - or whatever other weasel words you care to nominate. --Centauri 00:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
So commercial travel guides are reliable sources? If so, then I think I'll start to do some editing on the Florida Keys and Miami pages... Ta Ta FN ass
You're really not seeing the forest for the trees here. The reason Lonely Planet refer to the Conch Republic as a micronation is because it is of a type with many other entities that have been collectively identified as micronations in the press and in the popular imagination for well over a decade. Some of them are half-serious secession attempts. Some of them are nothing more than a geocities website created by a bored 13 year-old self-declared king. The rest fall somewhere in the middle - and yes, many many micronations are humorous and "tongue-in-cheek" - but that certainly doesn't mean that they don't exist! --Centauri 00:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Centauri, have you ever actually been to the Keys? FairHair 01:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your question bears no relevance to the subject of this discussion. It would be more worthwhile if you could explain to us the rationale upon which your argument is founded. After all, you are trying to promote the notion that the Conch Republic doesn't exist - a position that flies in the face of every available reference source - a number of which are quoted in the article itself. Pray, do tell us how this "non-existent" micronation can maintain a website selling branded products? How can it have a "Prime Minister"? How can it be involved in protests? How can it hold an annual independence day celebration? How can it establish "conchsulates" in foreign parts? How can it be described - at length, and in the present tense - in a book produced in 2006 by a leading international publishing house on the subject of micronations? --Centauri 04:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was vs is

At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious, the Conch Republic has existed for more than twenty years. It has never ceased existing. It is active, commercially and culturally in the present day. Historical events described at length in the article verify this. Many reputable independent reference sources verify this. Describing it in the past tense is factually incorrect. Continually reverting the article to a factually incorrect version constitutes article vandalism. Comprende? --Gene_poole 02:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this in a way someone not from or very familiar with the reality of Key West today might be able to understand. In the 19th century, the southern states succeeded and formed the Confederate States of America. That seccession is over, and the the CSA no longer exists. Still today any number of people sell, buy, use, display symbols of the CSA. The flag is still flown. There are countless websites promoting the CSA, and some even say it survives. It doesn't. The Wikipedia article says the CSA was .... It is exactly the same here. FairHair 19:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You guys appear to be edit warring over "was" vs. "is". I suggest you both stop, as it's fairly lame to do that. Come to a compromise position that encompasses both points of view (that it was a joke, and that it still to this day has some reality). 3RR is not a license to get 2 reverts a day or whatever, it's the spirit that matters, and if I come back to this article and see more back and forths, that would not be a good thing. Hope this warning helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Micronation?

Some feel the Conch Republic fits the definition of micronation regardless of its validity. According to the Wikipedia definition a micronation can exist only on paper or in one's mind, yet where's the source for this "definition"? I couldn't even find the word micronation in the dictionary. So as for the definition, who knows? Looks like it's a made up word. Also, are dot com sites valid sources? I thought .com meant it was commercial (biased) with an agenda to sell or promote something. Why the exception in allowing .com sites for the Conch Republic references? We can use commercial sites as references? What if you find two sites that contradict each other? Who decides which is wrong and which is right? Marc Averette 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a recently made up word. It's been in use for at least 20 years describing the category of non-nations that Micronation describes. Please, accusing the word of being a neologism and undefined is silly at this point. It's a legitimate word in common use. Georgewilliamherbert 19:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Then why can't I find it in my unabridged Oxford English dictionary?
Does that dictionary contain the word "Wiki"?
Wikipedia has a policy of not covering true neologisms, which are recently made-up words not yet in common usage. The reference sources on paper lag behind common usage. The term micronation was in common use more than 10 years ago, and is the only and consistent term used for the class of non-nation entities in question. Bringing up "the whole concept is bunk I can't even find a definition" here on one Micronation page you dislike, when there's a whole Micronation article in Wikipedia, is silly. Georgewilliamherbert 22:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The word has been in general use for years. The definition is clear as crystal. It's been used by major media sources such as The Guardian, the BBC, the New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald and countless others for over a decade. The world's biggest travel publisher has just last month published a book on the subject with the word "micronations" pasted in huge letters across the front cover - and funnily enough the Conch Republic is part of the content. This is a foolish red herring argument promoted by ignoramuses. --Centauri 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so for the sake of argument... it's a valid word. Micronation. Why are all the sites used for references biased commercial dot coms? Is there an official definition?
Here's a direct quote from Open-Encyclopedia: "The term micronation, which literally means "small nation", is a neologism originating in the 1990s to describe the many thousands of small unrecognized statelike entities that have mostly arisen since that time. The term has since also come to be used retrospectively to refer to earlier unrecognized entities, some of which date to as far back as the 19th century. Supporters of micronations use the term "Macronation" for any "real" sovereign nation-state. " [6]
Notice where it says "IS A NEOLOGISM"?
Why is it that the United Nations definition of a micronation is a "nation having fewer than 2 million people" ?
"Nation".
So by the United Nations' definition a micronation is a nation, yet the Conch Republic is obviously not a nation, so how can it be a micronation if by definition a micronation is a nation?
Another source states: "A criterion which distinguishes micronations from imaginary countries, eco-villages, campuses, tribes, clans, sects, and residential community associations, is that these latter entities do not usually seek to be recognized as sovereign. "[7]
So the Conch Republic is currently actively trying to gain sovereignty? Sovereignty is the right of a political entity to exercise power. In international law, sovereignty is a key concept, referring to the right of a state to exercise its powers.
I don't think the Conch Republic is actively trying to accomplish this.
- Marc Averette 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no United Nations definition of micronation. You're referring to microstate. Micronations exist for many reasons. Some claim to be seeking sovereignty. Some are personal amusements. Some are literary or art projects. Some are political protests. Some are tourism promotions. Read the article. Clear as crystal. "Biased commercial dot coms" is another stupid argument. .com sites are just as valid as any other sort of online reference source. Are you seriously suggesting that we should remove all references linked to www.nytimes.com ? The quote from Open Encyclopedia is a mirror of Wikipedia. --Centauri 23:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't y'all be having this discussion on the micronation talk page? --Gene_poole 01:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


NO - We're talking about whether the Conch Republic is a micronation. Haven't you been paying attention?

And the United Nations does have a definition for micronation. Look here: [8] Don't assume something is wrong just because you are unaware of it.


Here is a basic definition accepted by most micronations.

Micronation: A nation or state with a population of less than 2 million persons.

(1)State: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

(2)Defined Territory The sovereign territory designated by a state or nation. The territory can be measured in terms of acres, square miles, or megabytes, as long as the space is the sovereign territory of the nation or state.(3)

(1) - taken from the United Nations

(2) - taken from the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

(3) - United Micronations dogma

The Conch Republic fits NONE of these qualifications, therefore it cannot be a micronation by definition. Marc Averette 19:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


More sourced info: "A state must have defined territory. Just about any amount of territory will do: the Vatican consists of just a few buildings in Rome. The definition need not be exact, either: the United States became a state long before it figured out where its western frontier was located, and Israel is a state despite most of its borders being unsettled. But the territory must be there: a state cannot be ephemeral, which probably disqualifies most of the micronations started by people on the internet with too much free time." [9] Marc Averette 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your position is completely laughable.
There is NO United Nations definition of a micronation. If you can find such a definition on the United Nations website, please show it to us.
The website you quoted is actually an msn discussion group belonging to a small group of online/fantasy micronations - basically a bunch of kids pretending to run their own website-based countries - not the United Nations. It makes a generalisation about "most micronations" which is wrong, and it also attributes a definition to the United Nations which is wrong !!!
The rest of your comments relate to sovereign states. They have no relevance to this discussion, which, in case you've forgotten, concerns micronations.
You seem to be getting more and more confused the longer this discussion continues. Perhaps you need a good lie down. --Centauri 22:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Another Source

"The Conch Republic was an imaginary or not-generally-recognized nation or perhaps a micronation existing in the Florida Keys, after Key West and nearby islands seceded from the United States of America. "[10]

Notice the word "was"? - Marc Averette 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude. You can't use an older Wikipedia version as the source for a correction to the current version. Please, get real. Georgewilliamherbert 05:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
But you can use commercialized and biased rags like Lonely Planet? Oh, I see. The Conch Republic is a micronation. It says so right next to the Denny's coupons. Marc Averette 18:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Please get over this. The Micronation article contains defining explanations. It's consistent and referenced. The term is in widespread use. Georgewilliamherbert 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Why? You loons are so easy to wind-up it almost isn't funny. Almost. Marc Averette 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "you loons" is a very useful comment to make. I'd like to see all parties to this thread work out their differernces amicably if at all possible. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And this is amicable? "This is a foolish red herring argument promoted by ignoramuses. --Centauri 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)" Alright, maybe I should stick to words like "ignoramus" from now on. Nice of you to call him down for it first. Marc Averette 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
What I've given here is a warning hung on what appears to be the most recent bit of incivility, not a recounting of every piece of it I can find. There is plenty of incivility here, unfortunately, and what there should be though, is none. The right response to a civility warning is to be civil, not to say "But so and so is incivil too", as that's the defence we used in the schoolyard back before we matured and behaved as adults should. If I come back and find incivility continuing, I'll act on it. I do appreciate the reminder that more than one person might perhaps need a cooling off period though, and will make sure to spend time reviewing before I act, as I always do. ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Commercialised biased rags like Lonely Planet". What stupendous arrogance! If you can't deal with reality then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on factual data suported by multiple reliable reference sources. If you want to go and get hysterical and call the world's biggest travel publisher unreliable, then your'e more of a fool than I've previously assumed. I'm getting more than a bit tired of the silly little game you're pushing here, and frankly, I've got better things to be wasting my time on than educating the incurably stupid - and yes, I mean you. --Gene_poole 13:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you being so uncivil towards me? You are taking my viewpoint as if it were a personal attack. I'm only stating my viewpoints on this issue. Your childish behavior and name calling is extremely unprofessional and only makes any valid points you may have look silly, similar to the rantings of a four year old who is in bad need of naptime. - Oh - and by the way, it's "you're more of a fool than I'd previously assumed". It appears your tantrums are beginning to cloud your proper grammar. - Marc Averette 13:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Gene. I don't support the usage "Commercially biased rags" but I ALSO do not think " What stupendous arrogance!" is appropriate. Mark, " Your childish behavior and name calling" is not helping defuse the situation. I said if I turned up here again and saw continued incivility I would take action. Consider this a last warning, the collegiality of this discussion needs to increase. What I need all of you to do is be more civil, way more civil, than the other fellow, even if you think you've been unfairly provoked, please. I'd rather not hand out blocks for NPA but I will, and I'll paint with rather a broad brush. Oh, and I actually don't give two hoots about the controversy. I bet there's a wording you can come up with that recognises the controversy, presents the info cogently and completely, and lets the reader make up their own mind. Can you try to come up with that? That would be great. ++Lar: t/c 14:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that people need to start engaging in rational discussion here. I've established my position and provided a broader context and multiple reference sources supporting it. Despite days of to-ing and fro-ing, I'm still awaiting an appropriately referenced response from those promoting the alternative view. Somehow I suspect I'll be waiting a while. --Gene_poole 12:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This compromise should make all parties happy.

The Conch Republic was an imaginary or not-generally-recognized nation or perhaps an ephemeral micronation existing in the Florida Keys, after Key West and nearby islands seceded from the United States of America on April 23, 1982.[1] It has been maintained as a tourist promotion since then and today exists as a micronation without territory that sells faux passports and other memorabilia. - Marc Averette 14:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, weasel words are specifically felt to be extremely bad form in Wikipedia articles. That is not an improvement. I've set the first paragraph back to the last version by Gene (my edit summary says last edit by Centauri, but that was a goof). Georgewilliamherbert 21:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Goof hardly. You are Centauri's sock puppet, or vice-versa.
Um, no. You are mistaken, and going around accusing people of being sockpuppets is uncivil and if you keep it up a blockable offense. Centauri is not the only person who believes that you are clearly wrong on this point. Georgewilliamherbert 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Note: I'm not sure why the WP servers keep doing this, but both of my article edits (reverts) on the main article didn't get my logged in status. Both of the 63.204.7.125 IP edits are me. Georgewilliamherbert 22:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, when people start getting hysterical and accusing others of being sockpuppets, they're usually doing it themselves. Perhaps we should start looking a bit more closely at FairHair and Marc Averette. --Gene_poole 12:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another valid cited source for was/is argument

The Conch (pronounced "conk") Republic was a short-lived micronation in the Florida Keys. Here's some information from their Web page:

Conch Republic (U.S.)

- Marc Averette 13:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Marc, please stop this. This is getting insulting. That flags website has a brief out of context excerpt from the main Conch Republic website. It is thus a secondary source. The main Conch Republic website, which is the relevant primary source, uses the past tense to describe its origin and the current tense to describe its current status. Referring to sources which don't actually say what you claim they do is a tactic of desparation in Wikipedia arguments, but one which will ultimately lead to administrative sanctions. It's called adding nonsense to articles, and if you keep it up, an administrator will ban you from editing. Georgewilliamherbert 19:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
My sources are perfectly valid. The first sentence that was cited is a primary source. The paragraph below it is a secondary source from the Conch republic page. - Marc Averette 19:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
A one-sentence summary on the website for a flag company is not a reliable primary source for the current status of a micronation. Marc, this is silly.
Your edit on the US-1 "only road out of the keys" section just now is also nonsense. Card Sound Road is only a redundant connection from the mainland to El Radabob Key via Key Largo. It does not continue down the Keys as a redundant route as far as Key West. Please don't be absurd. Georgewilliamherbert 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
News flash: Key Largo is in the Keys. Stating that US-1 is the only road out of the Keys is an error. Card Sound road is another road from Key Largo to the mainland Florida. The fact that it does not extend all the way down to Key West is irrelevant. It is another road leading out of the Keys. Please do not vandalize valid corrections.

Absurd is the word of choice here. This is not a discussion - it's a farce. The FOTW website is a valid source - and it provides a quote dated 1998 from the "Conch Republic Secretary General" Peter Anderson - proving once again that there is no past tense here. How many more reference sources proving my point are you going to produce - while performing the preposterous mental contortions necessary to claim - with a straight face - that they say the exact opposite of what they actually do say? --Gene_poole 08:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course there's a past tense. Past tense is correct also. I can use present tense and say "I am a Florida resident". That would be correct. I can use past tense and say "I was a Florida resident last year". That would also be correct. You seem to have a problem with logic. On a side note, what on earth is "FOTW"? Is the average reader supposed to know?
Three words: Pot. Kettle. Black. The rest of your lunacy needs no further response. --Gene_poole 12:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Needs no further response, or can't respond because you realise that I'm right?
Take 2. Three words: Pot. Kettle. Black. --Gene_poole 12:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I see I've reduced you to babbling incoherent nonsense. Sorry. I didn't mean to overwork your brain with logic.

This got reported to AN/I. You guys are not being civil. I fear that the lot of you may well be blocked shortly, or the article will be protected, if you can't straigthen around, so please do. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think we've all come to an agreement. I've already accepted the was/is thing as 'is' being fine. There are only minor petty cosmetic trivial things that are still being ironed out as of now. - Marc Averette 01:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be awesome. I was just seeing stuff like "to overwork your brain with logic" and "preposterous mental contortions" (trying to pick from both "sides" as both sides were a bit off the rails) which led me to believe that there was an issue here still... But if it's sorted and if you could try a bit harder to be more collegial going foward, then we would be all set. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
We have most certainly not "all come to an agreement". Averette has simply accepted that his position was wrong. A pity he couldn't have saved everyone a lot of bother and done so two weeks ago. --Gene_poole 10:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
How is that different from coming to agreement, or at least, coming to consensus? And how was that last sentence helpful? More collegiality and less aspersion, please. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It isn't. He apparently just likes to argue. - Marc Averette 23:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
And how was THAT helpful? It would be ironic if you guys were blocked anyway, after you worked out your proximate differences. Seriously. Be collegial. Really. ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't the Conch Republic entry accepted in the Hurricane Wilma article?

If it's a micronation, shouldn't it be listed in the areas that were affected by the huirricane? The Conch Republic was affected just like Cuba, Mexico, Florida, etc. It keeps getting removed. Why? I guess other people think it's insignificant. - Marc Averette 00:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's part of Florida. --Golbez 01:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they don't claim to be "part of Florida". They claim to be an independent nation (republic)
They pay taxes to the United States and Florida. They receive aid and defense from the United States and Florida. They vote in Florida and United States elections. If a few residents claim that they are separate from Florida and the United States, then Wikipedia does not exist to pander to their delusions. --Golbez 14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The Conch Republic does not pay taxes. As claimed here, it's a micronation that only exists in the minds of others' and on paper. If it is such a noteworthy, encyclopedic entity, should it not be encyclopedic and noteworthy enough to include as part of the disaster path of hurricanes? After all, the prime minister's office and/or computer system may have received damage from the storm. If not, than it obviously isn't noteworthy or encyclopedic enough to have an article on Wikipedia. You can't have it both ways. - Marc Averette 14:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't be silly. There are probably thousands of Wikipedia articles which are potentially touched by a disaster (person X was there when it happened, one of only 100 Ferrari model Y cars was destroyed, cities and towns X1, X2, ... X100 were affected somehow). We don't put "these twenty interstate highways run through the affected region". Only particularly notable ones are included in the incident page. Georgewilliamherbert 17:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
So you're saying the Conch Republic isn't notable? - Marc Averette 22:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
You're essentially trolling with this comment, as it demands a willfull misunderstanding of the comment. --Golbez 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro paragraph

The edits that keep happening to the intro paragraph are nonsensical from introducing the Conch Republic as a micronation. Please keep this consistent with other micronation articles.

Specifically regarding the sockpuppet allegations, many of the senior Wikipedia administrators who do sockpuppet checks know who I am. I use my real name on my account, my information and location are verifyable. I do not live in Australia, I live in California. I do not operate a Micronation. Centauri and I are not socks in any way, shape, or form. If you don't take my word for it, please go to [11] and put in a Category E checkuser request for verifying that we are not the same person gaming 3RR. If you are able to convince them that checking is worth their time, the answer will come back that Centauri and I are editing from locations which are roughly on the opposite side of the planet from each other. The odds are high that they will simply reject your request as ridiculous, however.

I raised the Sock issue initially because of overlapping edit patterns of User:FairHair and User:Averette; those are now less evidently overlapping other than on this page.

Georgewilliamherbert 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The disputed "improved" intro paragraph

Conch Republic is a name applied to the Florida Keys. It was first used during a mock protest secession of the Keys from the United States on April 23, 1982. The term continues to be used as a tourism slogan, and has been used in Key West television commercials. Key West celebrates Conch Republic Independence Day every April 23 as part of a week-long festival of activities involving numerous businesses in the city. A Conch Republic website, which appears to be operated as a private business by "Secretary General" Peter Anderson, was set up in 1996. The website issues souvenir passports, and claims that the Republic is an actual independent nation (see micronation).

While these actions have been described by some as "tongue-in-cheek", they were motivated by frustrations over genuine concerns. The original protest event was motivated by a U.S. Border Patrol roadblock and checkpoint which greatly inconvenienced residents and was detrimental to tourism in the area. Although the Conch Republic is not, and never was, a real secessionist movement, many in Key West continue to identify with the concerns that motivated the original protest against what they view as an "unresponsive" central government taking action without considering all of the implications. At least three related protests have taken place subsequent to the original incident.

[edit] What's wrong with it

  1. The name only applies to Key West, not the whole Keys.
  2. This is a micronation article, and not mentioning "micronation" until the last word of the last sentence is sort of ridiculous.

Georgewilliamherbert 02:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earlier version

The Conch Republic is a micronation declared as a tongue-in-cheek protest secession of the Florida Keys from the United States on April 23, 1982. It has been maintained as a tourism booster for the Florida Keys region until the present day.

While the protest that sparked its creation, and others which have occurred periodically since then have been described by some as "tongue-in-cheek", they were motivated by frustrations over genuine concerns. The original protest event was motivated by a U.S. Border Patrol roadblock and checkpoint which greatly inconvenienced residents and was detrimental to tourism in the area.

Although the Conch Republic is not, and never was, a real secessionist movement, many in Key West continue to identify with the concerns that motivated the original protest against what they view as an "unresponsive" central government taking action without considering all of the implications. At least three related protests have taken place subsequent to the original incident.

The Conch Republic celebrates Independence Day every April 23 as part of a week-long festival of activities involving numerous businesses in Key West. The organization - which appears to be operated as a private business by its "Secretary General", Peter Anderson - is a key tourism booster for the area. It also issues its own souvenir passports and postage stamps (see cinderellas, stamp-like labels).

[edit] What's wrong with earlier version

Feel free to add comments here about what you think is wrong with the earlier one.

[edit] According to the "official" website, it's the whole Keys...

"

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CONCH REPUBLIC The Conch Republic was established by secession of the Florida Keys from the United States of America, on April 23rd, 1982 in response to a United States Border Patrol Blockade setup on highway U.S.1 at Florida City just to the north of the Florida Keys. This heinous act effectively isolated Keys Citizens from the U.S. mainland since the blockade was on our only land artery to and from the mainland. This roadblock portrayed Keys residents as non-U.S. citizens who had to prove their citizenship in order to drive onto the Florida mainland! Hardly an American thing to do!

"

History of the Conch republic

Or am I reading this wrong? - Marc Averette 03:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point and you know it. The infobox already states that the Florida Keys are the "claimed" area. The point is that you're removing the micronation reference yet again. Nobody agreed to do so, and it is unsupported by the references quoted. Apart from that obbvious piece of not-too-subtle vandalism the version you and your buddies are trying to impose on this article against consensus is hugely verbose and circumlocutory. The consensus version says the same thing much more eloquently. --Centauri 03:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
"Nobody agreed to do so". User:JW1805, User:Jonathunder, and User:Fairhair are nobody? Or are you suggesting that all these users are sock puppets of me? - Marc Averette 03:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
By "nobody" I mean "nobody who isn't on a crusade to vandalise the article". An by "vandalise" I mean "make changes that constitute original research due to being unreferenced". And by "unreferenced" I mean "unsupported by any third party source". Hope that's a bit clearer for you. --Centauri 05:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You obviously have me confused with someone else. I have never vandalized any article. Funny, I can't find the word "micronation" on the entire Conch Republic website. If you can, please let me know where it is. What I did find is a claim in a few places that they are the "world's first 5th world country" and that they are the "world's first functioning Meritocracy". Perhaps the Conch Republic article should start off with this. After all, it's "referenced" on the "official" site. - Marc Averette 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Again with the incivility. Please stop. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not trying to "vandalise the article"! I don't think I added any original research, either. There is a dispute that needs to be addressed here. Accusing people who don't agree with you of vandalism, or being sockpuppets is not the way to edit articles. We need to discuss the issues that are in dispute and make a good-faith effort to work them out. Here are a couple of points as I see them:

  • "Micronation" is not a term that is familiar to most people. I'm not saying that the Conch Republic is not a micronation. I do not object to the use of the term micronation. However, this term must be clarified in some way if it is used in the article. It is totally unacceptable to use such a nebulous term without clarification.
  • The Conch Republic is not Sealand. It is also not just some wacko with a website (e.g. Empire_of_Atlantium). It has a basis in reality, but is also wholly a farce. It is also a tourism slogan that has been used in commercials (which used the term as a general name for the Keys). This all needs to be explained clearly in the article. I made some attempt to do that in my recent edits. There is still room for improvement, but the old "The Conch Republic is a micronation..." is just too confusing for most people.
  • This article needs more sources. I do not believe that Peter Anderson's website is an objective source of information. I'm not familar with the Lonely Planet book, so I don't know how much of the article is from that. Some effort needs to be made to clarify how the original mock protest was morphed into Anderson's passport-selling business. Instances in the article that refer to "the group" or the "Conch Republic", need to be clarified. For example: "the Conch Republic annexed the abandoned span of Seven Mile Bridge". I think a NPOV way of saying that would be "Peter Anderson purported to annex the bridge in the name of the Conch Republic"....or something like that.

I think if we try to work on these issues we can come up with a NPOV version that will satisfy (most) people. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

    • If you think that the term Micronation is unfamiliar to people, why on earth do you believe that removing it from the first sentence of the introductory paragraph (and its wikilink) helps clarify the situation? This makes no sense... if it's a new term to most people, you should push that explanation and links up as early in the article as practically possible. As the old intro section did.
      • I disagree. The old version said "The CR is a micronation", and then never explained the definition of that term, which is obscure to 99% of readers. My version is 100% accurate and quite clear: "CR" is a term applied in various contexts to the FL Keys. It then goes on to explain the situation, and includes the term "micronation". I'm not saying my version is perfect, but I think it is better than what was there before. I am trying to create wording that everybody can agree with. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • In terms of identifying it as something which is simultaneously a serious protest, and a farce, I think it's reasonable to claim that both of the introduction versions place an equal and significant emphasis on stating that.
    • More sources are always good, but in this case, just because you don't like one source doesn't mean that you can throw it and it's way of describing the events out. As I understand it (I don't own the LP book but browsed it a while ago), the website and LP book are consistent. Probably due to Peter Anderson being a major source of info for the LP book, which is fine, but does introduce a bias. A whole bunch of, say, local newspaper articles from the Key West papers on the various actions would be good sources, if anyone knew what they were and could get copies of them. Lacking those additional sources, WP verifyability policy says that we should stick to what is reported in credible sources we do have. That is certainly not to say that more sources, particularly with more independent viewpoints, aren't a very useful thing to have. We just need to acknowledge that the article as it stands doesn't have them. If you can find and get them, then we should review them and if warranted change the article per what they additionally inform us...
      • I'm not saying discard any sources. But, the article should be clear about who is claiming what. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • In terms of changing the existing phrasing, I suggest that you not do that unless you find that it's inconsistent with the existing sources (website and LP book). Even if that's not ideal phrasing, it seems consistent with sources now.
    • So the ball's in everyone's court, in this sense; yes, the article could stand being improved. To do that in the most significant manner requires better documentation. Anyone involved here could work to find that better references/documentation/sources. Who is going to? Georgewilliamherbert 22:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I will try to find some more sources. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Response to JW1805's coments above:
I’d almost have been tempted to assume good faith here – had you not betrayed your ulterior motive by dragging your pet peeve into the discussion.
The fact that I’m the chief executive of Empire of Atlantium is well known to you and most other regular contributors to Wikipedia – and that is really what this whole Conch Republic beat-up is about.
Given that you, Jonathunder and (more recently) Averette have consistently and repeatedly nominated for deleteion and/or voted to delete micronation articles without what most reasonable observers might conclude was due consideration, your claims to be working in the best interests of Wikipedia concerning this article ring very hollow indeed.
Your actions in general to date have had the effect of degrading - not improving - this article and the talk page discussion. You have repeatedly supported definitions of terminology and interpretations of facts that are questionable, mistaken, ill-informed, unreferenced, deliberately mis-referenced or just plain wrong. Frankly, given your history here and with related articles, the three of you should all properly recuse yourselves from even editing this article.
I’ve been a solid contributor to the project for more than 4 years, and I’m not going anywhere – so the fact that you don’t like me, the organization I represent, micronations in general, or my contributions to this article is just too bad for you. Best you and your comrades get used to it. --Gene_poole 23:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Calm down, Gene Poole. My Atlantium crack was a little joke. I couldn't resist. I have nothing against you or any micronations you may represent. I don't think I've ever even edited another micronation article. I'm just trying to improve this article. Can't we all work together to do that? --JW1805 (Talk) 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure we can work together. As soon as you and your friends stop trying to make unreferenced POV alterations to the article. --Gene_poole 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] At last, a version that makes sense.

Thanks for the superior editing job and clarification. - Marc Averette 19:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree: the article is much better, now. Thanks, guys. Jonathunder 15:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You people have 2 choices - either stop your co-ordinated vandalism of this article - or come up with some reputable references to support your position that the Conch Republic is not a micronation, but a "name" - whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. --Gene_poole 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you really arguing that Conch Republic is not a name for the Keys? People use it even if they have no idea what a "micronation" is.--Cúchullain t/c 01:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There are plenty of sources to back this up. Here is one:
That is specious reasoning. The Conch Republic is a micronation. This is not a matter of dispute. We are not here to decide if it is or not. It has been widely known as such for decades, and all reputable third party references dealing with the subject either specifically identify it as such, or use terminology which makes it clear that it is an ephemeral statelike entity - ie the very definition of a micronation. Saying that it's simply the "name" or "nickname" for the Florida Keys - while failing to acknowledge the very reason that that is so - constitutes vandalism by deliberate exclusion. --Gene_poole 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It does explain where the name came from, in the second sentence! The word "micronation" is even used in both the infobox and in the first paragraph. I'm failing to understand your complaint.--Cúchullain t/c 02:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You must be looking at a different version from me in that case. The current version tacks the word "micronation" in parentheses onto the bottom of the introduction, instead of at the beginning, where it should be. After all, the only reason that the world at large knows about the Conch Republic at all is because it's a micronation - not because the Florida Keys use it as a "nickname". I think it's time we involved some external editors in this discussion. Everyone here is too tied up in their own agendas to conduct a rational discourse. I'll frame something appropriate when I get the time, and we can take it from there. --Gene_poole 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Conch Republic is a well known nickname for Key West, as everyone familiar with the Keys knows. The silly "micronation" website is just one person trying to promote himself and trying to appear as more than one person. The article is much more balanced now than it was. FairHair

Hi Averette. If it wasn't for Peter Andersen and his friends there would be no "nickname" in the first place. You should really look up the meaning of "cause and effect". The article is not "balanced"; it's wrong, and it will be changed in due course - your use of socks and Jonathunder's active encouragement of them notwithstanding. --Gene_poole 02:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You're mistaken. There is no such "checkuser confirmation" about me, and according to your buddy Taxman, even if there was it would mean nothing. Apparently all that's needed to confirm a sock is vague suspicions and 2 people sharing the same opinion on 1 topic. On that basis the likelihood that Averette = Fairhair is 100%. --Gene_poole 03:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some references

Trying to find some more references. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your references show that various people have been "Prime Minister" and/or "Secretary General" of the Conch Republic since it was founded. Nothing new there. Doesn't change who the current incumbents are. The currency is Conch Dollars. They're well documented by numismatists. You can buy them on eBay. --Gene_poole 02:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EConch_Republic_15a0.html"