Talk:Republic of Rose Island
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
A Wikipedian removed Republic of Rose Island from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. |
This page needs a whole lot of NPOV-ifying. -- Kwekubo
- Done. -- Mpt 04:01, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I very much doubt whether the micronation known as "Rose Island" has ever even existed beyond imagination. I mean, how could one engineer construct a platform on nine pylons, in deep water eleven kilometres off the coast?
I modified this:
The platform's Council of Government sent a telegram(to whom?) to protest the "violation of its sovereignty and the injury inflicted on local tourism by the military occupation", but this was ignored.
removing the "to whom?". It's a good question though. Who got the telegram? I would assume the Italian government. --cprompt 14:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
according the article, the name of this "micronation is, in Italian, "Isole delle Rose", which means Islands of the Roses and not Rose Island. --SeekingOne 13:29, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
The Italian name is not familiar to me - its presence here predates my editing of the article - however the name that appears on Rose Island's stamps is "Insulo de la Rozoj", which as near as I can tell is expressed in the singular form - but I'm no Esperanto expert. --Gene_poole 22:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- it:Micronazione has Isola. -- Error 05:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- "Insulo" is indeed the singular form in Esperanto (the plural would be "insuloj"), so "Island of the Roses" is certainly correct. --PeterHansen 23:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is the funniest article ive ever read --Zeno of Elea 06:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] References
More references (pointers to old newspaper articles, books, etc.) would be nice. Samboy 23:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I found a website talking of "Isola delle Rose" (this is the right translation, I speak both Italian and Esperanto)
http://www.imperial-collection.net/rose_island.html
there is a picture of the original flag and all the stamps issued by the short-lived republic
I agree with Samboy. Is it possible to find a non-internet reference to this? While this story is certainly possible, it's also outlandish enough that further proof would be appreciated. Dvyost 15:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I salvaged the following from the webarchive ghost of a bibliography page no longer available on the Footnotes to History site. It cites pages 129-130 of Erwin W. Strauss's How To Start Your Own Country (Port Townshend, WA: Breakout Productions, Inc., 1999) as a source for this story.
[1] has a link for a podcast where the director of the Esperanto League of North America discusses Rose Island. Bandwidth is currently exceeded, have to wait until tommorow to hear it. commonbrick 17:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Arms?
Did the Republic have arms (are they those shown on the flag)? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dates of occupation and destruction?
The article only mentioned that the Italian reaction was heavy-handed and swift, are there any dates available to show when the Italians take over the island, and when they destroyed it? deadkid_dk 23:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hoax?
At first reading my feeling was "what a shame they destroyed it". Now I'm wondering if the entire thing is an elaborate hoax. I don't know enough about it to decide, but since people have been questioning the veracity of this on this page since 2003 I think it's reasonable to tag the article. I don't know if it's a hoax or not and that's the purpose of the tag - to encourage a process of discovery. --kingboyk 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's certainly no hoax. It's a well-known historical fact. I assume you overlooked the references, photographs and this. Might be best to take some more care before jumping to conclusions in future. --Centauri 22:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've also restored the Good Article tag - which for the record, I was not responsible for adding in the first place. I'm not sure why you removed it, as the article complies with all the necessary requirements, namely: well written, factually accurate, neutral point, stable, referenced, and contain images. --Centauri 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't jump to any conclusions. I simply stated that I don't know if it's a hoax or not. The article didn't convince me, therefore it's hardly "good" I would say. More to the point, it is very lacking in hard sources. --kingboyk 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- PS [2] is in Italian. Sadly I speak only English. --kingboyk 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Finally, you say I missed "this" but where exactly is that link in the article?! I still can't find it. --kingboyk 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Being "convincing" is not one of the criteria for determining if an article is good or not, so I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. On top of which there are by my count 3 different references given between the article and this talk page - one of which is in Italian, as you might reasonably expect given that the events discussed occurred in the vicinity of Italy. Finally the link I referred you to was discovered by doing a Google search that took me all of 3 minutes. I will certainly add it to the references. --Centauri 23:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delisted GA
This article achieves all the GA requirements bar one - any images used need to be appropriately tagged. (I try to remember the features of GA using the awful mnemonic BRAWWSTIN - Broad, Referenced, Accurate, Well-Written, Stable, Tagged Images, NPOV; "broad" is not necessarily comprehensive, but no major omissions. This certainly seems to hit BRAWWS- and -IN but not, at the moment, the "T"!) The photo uses an obsolete template and is unsourced, making any verification of PD status impossible. PD seems unlikely; on photographs the usual reasons are: work of U.S. government (most other governments retain copyright - including, I believe, Italy), age (this is a relatively modern photo), or that it has been released by the copyright holder (this seems rather unlikely for such an aerial photograph, whilst it is plausible, something that details the release is necessary). The other picture is apparently released under GFDL by the creator, which is an appropriate tag. Once the photograph is either accurately sourced and appropriately tagged, or alternatively is removed, GA should be reinstated.TheGrappler 04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA on hold
I've reviewed the article and the previous complaint in regards to it, and it seems that the image of the island still needs to be tagged in order to qualify for GA. ErleGrey 01:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Similiar occurances
Sealand and other micronations were established during the same period. Shouldn't the article mention that, as context? Fsotrain09 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
