Talk:New Utopia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Micronations WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of micronations. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 1 Nov 2004. The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 4 March 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 8 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] NPOV

Check out the original version of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=New_Utopia&oldid=4184312

You'll see it doesn't make presumptions that this is a valid project, as its website only claims it is valid. In fact, it always states new information will be available next summer or in the next few months. There is more than enough evidence to show that the site's claims are false, and that its associated companies and investors exist in name only. But in order to retain a neutral, non-biased point of view, recent changes have made the article treat the project and all statements as if they were real. While I can appreciate this, I feel it is misleading as a whole. New Utopia is not simply a planned project; it is a highly questionable and intentionally vague series of misinformation meant to syphon money from the overly ambitious and hopeful. Many have wasted money on the $1500 citizenship fee and currency motivated by hope alone, with no solid evidence on the site to support anything other than a group of people living in Texas and running a bogus website.

I believe the falsity of the project, and the disinformation it causes should be the emphasis of the article, rather than treating New Utopia as a plausible reality. It may appear more biased, but would result in being far more factual, I believe. Ihavenolife

There are also factual errors in this article. The SEC charges were not "dropped". In fact Mr. Long or as he was previously known Mr. Turney admitted to defrauding $24,000 but stated he could not pay it because he was destitute.[1]. This must be clarified. — © Alex756 14:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is there really a NPOV debate going on? I don't see a lot of revert wars or debate about accuracy going on over at the article There is quite a lot of mention of the fact that many think it is a scam, or else that Lazaraus Long could be deluded. There is also reference to the proposed principality's attempts to claim legitimacy.

Would it be a good idea to take the NPOV warning off? --SV Resolution 18:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is terminally POV. It was clearly written by micronation enthusiasts, who can't see that there is no "New Utopia" and that the only point of interest here is fraud. Let's examine the provided resources:

  • Scamdog web site. Probably not a reliable source, and article dwells on the fraud aspect
  • An SEC ruling (primary source)

External links:

  • "Official" website. (An aside: Do we aide fraudsters by linking to their sites? I don't know.)
  • Quatloos: Doesn't seem like a reliable source, but if it is, it's again merely talking about the preposterousness of the scheme
  • SEC again
  • Business week. Very short article, key quote: " But the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission isn't hailing new nobility. It's busting frauds who declare independent nations in cyberspace and then sell bogus investments. Prince Long, once Howard Turney of Tulsa, ran one of three such scams that were shut down this year. They were all pretty outlandish: "
  • Wired. "New Utopia" plays a bit part in this article which is primarily about "Talossa".

Summary: There is no "New Utopia". There's a barely notable scam by a guy called Lazarus Long Howard Turney. As such, I am going to rename the article and refactor it as a biography or as a report on a scam, but I have to wonder if it's enyclopedic in any form. --kingboyk 13:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is "Principality of New Utopia" a NPOV violation as the article name? You changed it (edit summary) claiming talk page explanation, and haven't made any such explanation here. Please clarify. Georgewilliamherbert 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Because it isn't a principality, it's an investment scam. It looks like we've agreed on "New Utopia", however. --kingboyk 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"Principality..." is the name the sources use for it, though. Why do you insist on not following the references on this point? Georgewilliamherbert 21:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to the name of the person, as I attempted to refactor as a biography. I've now moved it to this name as a janitor, because that's how another editor has refactored it and his changes seem to be popular at the AFD. It's not my choice of name but I'd accept it as a compromise (I think it should be something like "Principality of New Utopia scam"). If you want it renamed please discuss it at the AFD, particularly if the sources support you; we need to get agreement on that as I suspect the article will be kept. Cheers. -- kingboyk 23:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

look like a the sites are dowen , did sombody get sued them  ? hopfule they are not sue , hmm did pepol anwser quastin her or do they just get deleted?--61.7.161.145 05:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes and proposed move

I've restored the micronation infobox template that was deleted without explanation several weeks ago. I intend correcting the current unbalanced state of the article by adding further content concerning Turney's planned artificial island project, as this is what attracted much of the media attention he received, and currently we say almost nothing about it. Finaly, I am proposing to move the article back to Principality of New Utopia, which will bring it back into alignment with the established naming convention for micronation articles, and addresses the problem of inaccuracy introduced by the previous moves. --Gene_poole 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the most recent AfD discussion to see why the infobox was removed and why the article is in its current state. I oppose the pagemove for three reasons:
  1. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, we should keep titles simple and to what people will most easily recognize.
  2. The sources refer to "New Utopia" rather than "Principality of ...". See, for instance, the Business Week e.biz and The Motley Fool sources.
  3. This is an article about a scam, not about a micronation. I doubt that the article would have survived AfD if the article had been presented as one about a micronation. Refer, for instance, to the following comments:

    "Delete, fifteen minutes of fame isn't. As the article indicates, there's no tangible evidence of his so-called nation."
    "It has no tangible evidence of its existence as a nation, but the article shouldn't portray it as a real nation, the article should portray it as a scam."
    "Delete non-notable dude, non-existent place."
    "Keep the articel about the scam, as now moved to New Utopia."
    "As of the time I am making this comment the article is about a hoax or scam that seems notable. The whole micronation thing is irrelevent except as it relates to the scam."
    "Delete or keep as an article about an investment scam, which is the verifiable and notable aspect of this incident."

I am not opposed to the addition of some details about how the scam was presented/carried out by adding information about Turney's claims about the artificial island project, and so on. However, such information should be presented in the appropriate context as per the sources; namely, that, "New Utopia" was a scam. I can quite confidently state that an article about the micronation would be deleted at AfD on grounds of notability. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It is described as a micronation in the opening line of the article, per sources. It is identical to other micronations based on financial scams. It is classified in at least one source as being of a type with Sealand. It has a flag, coat of arms, a prince, purports to be a country while not being recognised as one and has minted actual metal coins which are for sale. In other words, it shares all the characteristics of a micronation. Trying to say that it somehow isn't one is disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at worst. Given that that the article survived 2 prior AFDs in its original form there is very little likelihood that it will be deleted irrespective of the perceived content slant. If you wish to test this you should nominate it again. --Gene_poole 21:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. With regard to its description in the opening sentence, it is rightly described as a "micronation investment scam" rather than simply a "micronation". I think of it not as a "micronation based on [a] financial scam", but rather a financial scam based on a supposed micronation. The scam, and not the nonexisting micronation, is the subject of the sources. Since the subject of the article (the investment scam) is notable, I have no desire to see the article deleted. Not only that, an AfD nomination on my part would be inappropriate as AfD should not be used to settle content disputes.
I will refrain from reverting your changes pending further discussion of the matter on this page. However, with regard to the two sentences you have added ... could you please source it them, namely particularly the statement that the publicity was "largely responsible for raising the micronation's profile" and that "New Utopia's 'UK Pro Consul' was interviewed by Danny Wallace for his 2005 BBC2 series about micronations How to Start Your Own Country." Thank you, Black Falcon (Talk) 01:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your considered response. In terms of taxonomy, any entity that is ephemeral, unrecognised and statelike is by definition a micronation. There are obviously lots of different types of them, financial scams being one. The fact that New Utopia belongs to the "financial scam" sub-set of "micronation" makes it no less of a micronation. It is simply not possible to view the existence of New Utopia as a financial scam separate from its existence as a micronation - however tenous that "existence" may be. The scam and the micronation are intrinsically linked. One did not give rise to the other; they were each complementary components of the scam. I intend adding significantly to the new section I began this morning, and will of course be citing sources in due course. --Gene_poole 01:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Your point is well-taken. Even an article that focuses solely on "New Utopia as a scam" (which I think this article ought to) should ideally present details on its components, including the nature of Turney's "offer" of citizenship, efforts that were expended to publicise the venture, and so on. Though I still remain unconvinced that an infobox is necessary/appropriate, and may continue to modify the article's text or add new content, I will avoid making any reverts as I have confidence that we will be able to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution through discussion. A final note: I have added a {{Fact}} tag to one of the sentences that you added, but did so only as a matter of course/habit. My action was not intended in any way to pressure you in terms of time or otherwise. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 02:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is an accepted component of a significant proportion of micronation articles. I see no justification for removing it - particularly as New Utopia posesses a flag, coat of arms, metal coinage and the various other titular symbols the box is intended to document. Feel free to add whatever you think is appropriate. You may also wish to consider joining the proposed Micronations Wikiproject which is currently in the process of being set up in an effort to reach a wider consensus on these matters. It already appears that there's quite a groundswell of interest. --Gene_poole 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Micronations aren't really my forte, but I will consider the proposal. As for the infobox, I'd like some time to look at other articles about micronations and to consider the issue in that context. I certainly won't remove it while we are discussing the matter, especially since the concern that the article may mislead readers (by playing into the hands of the scam), which partly motivated the most recent AfD, is sufficiently addressed by the opening sentence. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 03:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no real tangible evidence to support the claim that New Utopia is any kind of scam or has been involved in taking anyones money. The SEC filed a complaint and an injunction was issued but they were not found guilty of any crime and as such were not a scam. The SEC not wanting to admit a mistake in a high profile case forced Lazarus Long to sign a statement of no contest and the charges were dropped and he was told to return $24,000 that no claimant had claimed he owed and he stated he would not and that he could not since he had received no money. This was misrepresented by SEC to make it appear that he had no funds at all. They simply went after a money grab and covered their butts on a false accusation. The head of the SEC had stated falsely on national radio that Lazarus Long had raised $350,000,000 from the sale of illegal bonds. No sale had taken place and the SEC wanted to cover their back side plain and simple. The saying where there is smoke there is fire applies to people and their reasons for their actions. In this case the smoke was on the part of the SEC as a smoke screen to cover wrong doing on their part.

The Government of New Utopia filed the claim in 1996 in the world court on the land and that claim was later contested in court and New Utopia's government won in that court case. The Government of New Utopia also did their initial survey of the area in 2003 and placed a flag buoy on the site. The survey included sonar and video images and the sonar is available here [2]

The Government of New Utopia has had a legal opinion on the validity of their claim filed by London Barrister Shay Lotan and is available upon request but is not published due to Shay's request. The Government can be reached at 239-495-2447 at their US office in South West Florida. Claims with no material substance against New Utopia and the character of Lazarus Long should be stopped. There is no validity to it what so ever.

Thousands of man hours are involved in the work invested in this project and considerable personal funds from various interests. Work is underway to secure large funding from professional investment groups that are aware of all of the risks involved and those efforts are made more tenuous when every unfounded claim has to be rebutted from every uninformed person on the Internet jumping to conclusions he knows nothing about. Vortexentity 03:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity

This article as it is now if slanderous. It is fully misrepresenting the reality of the project. There are thousands of people involved in this nation project and they are very upset to see this as is the Government itself. It is completely inaccurate. No one gives you the right to slander good people without any evidence of your accusations. The date of founding is September 1996 when the claim was filed at the World Court and with the Hague.

The nation is not a scam and no one has ever been convicted of any wrong doing that is any part of the government of New Utopia. To have this up on the web is causing injury and that is not permitted under the rule of law. Vortexentity 03:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity

Vortexentity ... a few points, if I may:
  1. This article is about a topic that is rather controversial (note that it has been the subject of three deletion discussions). If any substantial changes are to be lasting, they must be supported by reliable published secondary sources. What reliable sources editors have been able to find so far all point to New Utopia being an investment scam, at least as alleged by the U.S. SEC.
  2. Regardless of what the head of the SEC may or may not have said, the article does not claim that Mr. Turney raised $350 million from the sale of illegal bonds. It states that Mr. Turney offered "US$350 million in unregistered bonds". This is a fact.
  3. Your comment about "every uninformed person on the Internet jumping to conclusions" is both unfair and may indeed be offensive to many (please see Wikipedia's policy on civility). -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The word scam does not appear in any place in the SEC article. [3] This is a mistaken conclusion and the word should be removed from the page since it does not appear to be supported by the SEC document.

The article has the founding date incorrect. The published record of the establishment of New Utopia is September 1996 Vortexentity 03:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity

I have removed the founding date for lack of a source. I am not adding the date of "September 1996" as you have provided no source to confirm it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The words "false representations" do not appear in the SEC article sited as the source for the quote and as such are a misrepresentation should be deleted. Vortexentity 04:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity

The words "false representations" are quotes from the Wall Street Journal article. The SEC uses "material misrepresentations" ... I see no real difference between the two but can replace one for the other if you like. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In the article the characterization is used "Under the guise of financing construction" and it is quoted from a source that is not available and as such can not be verified so that phrase should be discarded.Vortexentity 04:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity

"Under the guise of financing construction" is not a direct quote from the Wall Street Journal article, but it conveys the the content of the article ... I will seek a more neutral term shortly. However, the WSJ source should not be discarded as it is a reliable source. The full text is available to anyone subscribing to the WSJ and is also available in any print version of that issue of the WSJ. The fact that a source is not available online (this one is, although its availability is limited) is not a reason to discard it. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote "fraudulent enterprise."[2] in the article is also sited as originating from the SEC document sited in the article and that phrase is not in that article and so it is opinion of the editor and not a situation of a fact from the source.

Is anyone seeing a pattern here. Information is taken out of context and recontextualized to slant the article in a slanderous manner. That is rather hostile in nature. Vortexentity 04:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity

Please assume good faith regarding the intentions of editors. Any misrepresentations that were made, and I'm not stating that any were indeed made, are likely the result of good-faith mistakes. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lazarus Long is the legal name of the Prince of New Utopia and I have changed references to Turney to Long.

Except in the context of a direct quote, the article now refers to Mr. Turney as Mr. Long as "Long" is the name used in most sources. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Added the sentence "In 2003 The Principality invested $27,000 conducted a survey of their territorial claim."

A situation should be added for this and directed to this source [4] Vortexentity 04:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity

The source you have provided does not seem to be independent of "New Utopia". If that is the case, it does not qualify as a reliable source and should not be used in the article. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 04:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the source being independent it clearly contains evidence in the form of video data, sonar data, and divers in the water doing exactly what is stated in the sentence. How much more obvious does information have to be in order to qualify as the truth? Vortexentity 05:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity

I will be happy to implement any changes (additions or removals) that help to improve the article (by improving sourcing, making it more neutral, and so on). However, it is Wikipedia policy that self-published sources "are largely not acceptable as sources". The source you have provided is self-published, is it not? If the source does not meet the specifications of the reliable source guideline, then the video data cannot be used to source the claim that "a flag was planted at the Misteriosa Bank" ... it only definitively confirms that a flag was planted somewhere. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[Pseudonym] as indicated in the wiki for that word is indicating the use of a false name. Lazarus Long is the person who is mentioned in the articles and that is his true and legal name and thus is not a [Pseudonym] at all. This phrasing makes the article sound far more strongly negative and assumes that Lazarus Long is not his true legal name but a fiction created for the purpose of a scam and that is not the case. In the SEC statement sited in the article the term a/k/a is used as is the case in any legal document it will have all names by which the person has been known. It is not indicating the use of a [Pseudonym] in this instance but his birth name Howard Turney is included in the SEC statement for the purpose of further clarifying and identifying the individual.

Vortexentity 05:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity

I've changed the sentence to mirror the wording used by the SEC. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The sonar records contain the longitude and latitude and depth data for the entire survey. They are very strong evidence that the rest of the data as presented is also correct. The raw data sets and the free viewer needed to view the data is available upon request.

Image:combined-data-fields01.jpg


More accurately the article would not include the word "scam" as it does not appear in any of the statement made by SEC also "fraudulent enterprise" does not appear in any place in the article. The fact established was that

The Principality of New Utopia was, according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (U.S. SEC), permanently enjoined from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

The sentence then states "The U.S. SEC found that Long had raised US$24,000 from the sales of securities in the fraudulent enterprise." That is not stated in the citation. There is no reference to a fraud at all. All that was established is that Lazarus was enjoined from violating the cited securities rule. It does not state nor was it established that he was found in violation of the stated rule at all.

For reference here is a link to the SEC site where Banc of America is found in violation of the same rule. [5] Notice from this source that when the government finds you in violation of the rule they clearly state that fact as in this sited article.

example

(6) BAS willfully aided and abetted and caused violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Order censures Respondents and requires:

(1) BACAP to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act, Sections 17(d), 20(a) and 34(b) of the Investment Company Act and Rules 17d-1 and 20a-1 thereunder;

Do you see the difference? When SEC finds someone in violation they do not just say you are permanently enjoined as they did with Lazarus long. They say you are to cease and desist. No where in the SEC article sited on this article does it use that type of language. When you compare it to the page I site above the difference is quite clear. With no example standing beside it the article can be misinterpreted as has been done in this case. Vortexentity 05:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity

I have deleted the word "fraudulent". As regards the sonar image, I must admit that I don't know how to interpret it ... however, as it is self-published, it most likely cannot be used. On a different note, it is currently quite late where I am and I can't continue editing tonight as I need to sleep; I will return in the morning and will be happy to continue our discussion then. Since the concerns you raise are serious, I have requested elsewhere that one or more other experienced editors come to address them and fix the article as needed. I hope that is to your satisfaction. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your message on my talk page ... my comment that I have edited the article to reflect the SEC source applied only to changing the part about "under the pseudonym". -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see no way that it can be established by the SEC page citation used that the editor can fairly jump to the conclusion that the Principality of New Utopia is a scam or was running a scam. Where is the evidence of this established in the citation? The citation only establishes that Lazarus Long was permanently enjoined from violating the SEC rule in the citation. Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

These rules when broken will cause the SEC to issue quite a different statement as in my citation example A What is clear when these 2 pages are viewed side by side that the type of language that is being used to establish that Lazarus Long was running a scam as the editor says example B is var from conclusive. In fact when compared to the example A page by SEC against Banc of America it is clear that they use far more clear language to establish that the rule was violated and that the Banc of America must cease and desist.


By the editor of this article's logic the evidence is far more compelling that Banc of America was running a scam. It is not so clear when you simply do not understand the legal language and that is exactly why SEC uses that type of linguistic sophistry in their citation. It is intellectually dishonest to abuse language like this but that is the government for you.

After 10 months of emotional exhaustion and mounting legal bills Long simply gave in and signed the amended statement since it did not indicate any guilt on his part. The term disgorgement is used in the citation and that was not on any statement that Long signed. The language was added to that statement to make it appear that Long had done some wrong even though nothing he signed admitted or indicated any guilt what so ever.Vortexentity 07:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)vortexentity

Vortexentity, I am not an expert in U.S. finance law, so my ability to evaluate the SEC rulings you have linked to is limited. In any case, personal interpretation of legal rulings is discouraged on Wikipedia; instead, one should rely on interpretations provided in secondary sources. However, I would like to quote the following excerpt from an SEC press release about New Utopia reproduced in this source:

Today Judge Michael Burrage, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa Division, granted the Commission's request for an emergency restraining order to halt a fraudulent nationwide Internet scheme involving the offer and sale of a bogus $350 million bond offering. (emphasis added)

Thus, I believe that the introductory sentence of "The Principality of New Utopia was, according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (U.S. SEC), a micronation investment scam" is an accurate interpretation of the SEC's position.
Please note that the article itself no longer claims that New Utopia is a scam, but instead attributes this claim to the SEC and three other sources. I feel that the current state of the article accurately reflects the content of the reliable sources that I and others who have edited this article have been able to find thus far.
I would be happy to make appropriate additions to the article if you request them, but must ask that you please provide reliable sources to support any assertions. The source you have provided above (a few times) is, unfortunately, a self-published source and thus cannot be used to source any content other than claims by its publishers, which will be presented as claims only, rather than facts. That said, the article (in keeping with Wikipedia's neutrality policy) currently does present Mr. Long's position that "the project is real".
If you disagree with my assessment of the article, I can offer four courses of action:
  1. You can provide reliable sources that dispute one or more claims made in the article and I will modify its contents accordingly.
  2. You can place a formal request for comment on the article (the instructions are available via the link) to solicit input from other editors. If you like, I can place the request myself.
  3. You can request input from other editors by reporting the matter to the noticeboard for biographies of living persons. Although this article is not a biography, it contains information relevant to a living person and, as such, falls under the scope of that noticeboard. Again, if you like, I will gladly do the "paperwork" myself.
  4. If you are the subject of the article (i.e., Mr. Lazarus Long) and you feel that the article contains libellous material, you may e-mail your concerns to the address provided here.
Please realise that none of these actions guarantee that the article's content will be changed, as any action will be based in Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, reliable sources, verifiability, and original research, which I feel that the article currently satisfies. Please let me know how you would like to proceed, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


organzation make fraud??or just global warming scare this is a other perspective on the fraud/real duscissen (sorry for my bad enghlis) fraud? dont wikipeida make in info on what happen to the citizens and lawsuites agisnt new utopia that is rumerd to be made(becuse wikipeida is the only 3. party for infomration on new utopia i think )  ? becuse is it not fraud to sell id papers to somthing that not exists? and somthing that probely will be outdated (if you did buy a passport in 1996 it last do 10 years and that will be outdated now ) a membership of a orgazation that promise somthing that cant make real can not that be some way of fraud ? specaily when in the viedo looks like it have a office in caymen... but in usa cant pay his debt, why did the office in Tulsa close if he is to poor to pay anything (this are somthing from sombody live outside north america that dont know laws and regulation in usa or cariben what happen to the govonuers and ambasoders/consulats that did leav the project? at least sombody did start a project in cost rica.., what abut the new utopia citizens if its 3500 internet useres that are citizens sombody somwehr should be posibel to make a mailing list to dig deep into this and abut lawsiutes or things happen in if he get sued by a citizen in virgin island, germany or hounduras ? pepol out ther say its fraud why have nobody organzzeid a class lawsuite or (as it look like ) some of the govonouers keep ther citizens infomation/network/adressbok informtaion as a eh way to make a new project in buy island /gated comunity/re? or for fraud ?(if they hade 3200 citizens its a lot of peronal infoamtion that can be abused .. just look on what have to be written in the passport papers...). what happen to the lawsuites from housten ? or the dallas building company that had some powerpoint abut new utopia sombody said was just a house in a texas suburb.....what abut the austrilan consulat website that get closed ?his regsiter company and bank informtaion... maybe what is need is sombody scarsch lawsuite databaese in cariben austrila and uk to see if anybody can prove some vedince for if it exist of have been sued ?

or can it be so simep that this project fail so far becuse global warming and more hurcainnes? and the general war on tax heavns?orthe gated-comunity-carry-guns in nevda like projects so you dont need to make new nation to make your owen rukes in a new comunity ? more cheap airpalens offers so humans dont need buy a passport to get a 2. change  ?--61.7.161.74 10:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)m150

[edit] Start again, please

The article, such as it was, appeared to be teased out of a series of articles based on the SEC finding. According to Long, and reading the actual text of the SEC finding rather than the lurid reports, there was no fine, no conviction, no evidence that any bonds were sold, that I can see - in short, no actual scam. It's hard to see how this was a fair or balanced article. I know there are a whole Wikiproject full of micronation fans, so please let's see if we can't do a whole lot better. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

At the latest AFD the consensus seemed to be that an article about the man (Lazarus Long) or the micronation (The Principality of New Utopia) was inappropriate because were not notable. Thus the article about the scam was created. It probably would have been better for you just to go rogue and delete and salt the whole thing ;). I fear if an article about the micronation is created again, another heated afd will happen... --Iamunknown 22:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I have e-mailed Guy asking for clarification about the OTRS action. In the e-mail, I noted that outright deletion would probably be preferable to retaining an article that does not mention the scam and, therefore, does not prove the subject's notability. I am currently awaiting a response to that e-mail. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 23:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Blanking the article is certainly not supported by any consensus. It should be restored, along with the many references, citations and images contained within it. --Gene_poole 23:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Since this was an OTRS action, it is necessary to discuss the matter before taking any action. Any admin is able to restore the deleted history, but doing so without adequate discussion would be inappropriate. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The corollary being that it was inappropriate to blank the content and delete the history without adequate discussion in the first place. The default position of the article should be restored. THEN any discussion concerning blanking can occur, not vice versa. --Gene_poole 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's true, but undeleting the article right now would result in unnecessary escalation. I'd like to wait for Guy to respond before taking any action. I'll leave a comment at his talk page. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay getting back. Here is the situation: the SEC document describes a voluntary agreement between Long and the SEC in respect of promotion of his bond issue. It was made clear at the time that the bonds were not registered with SEC and were not for sale to US citizens, but SEC opened the case, despite the fact that no bonds had apparently been sold to US citizens, because there was a link on a site hosted in the US to the site selling the bonds. Long entered an agreement in order to curtail what would otherwise have been lengthy proceedings. There was no conviction for fraud, there was nothing from SEC to say it was a scam (selling unregistered bonds offshore to non-US citizens is not an offence, and there is no evidence any were sold to US citizens), and that was an end of it. I suspect, reading between the lines, that the guy was just terribly naive - financial regulators have long arms and precious little imagination. Most of the article was a description of a "scam" which it seems to me from the evidence never actually existed, and was probably not a scam anyway except in some strictly technical sense. The subject is understandably upset in that the article portrayed him basically as a fraudster, when he has not been convicted of anything. The text of the article talks about it being "briefly mentioned" in various sources, but it really is only briefly mentioned. Also it called him Lazarus Long aka Howard Turney; this is wrong, he changed his legal name so it is not an alias. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So what we now need to do is re-write the article so it's about the micronation, like it was in the first place, making mention of the related (but seemingly unproven) fraud allegations. That shouldn't prove difficult as there's a resonable amount to say on the subject. I don't personally have a great deal of time to devote to doing it properly over the next couple of weeks, but I encourage others to set things off on the right path again. --Gene_poole 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Guy, I won't dispute the facts of the SEC case, but the article can't be written without mentioning the allegations of a scam. I can certainly rewrite the article such that it places less emphasis on the scam controversy, starting with

"New Utopia is a micronation project ..."

rather than

"New Utopia was, according to the SEC, a micronation investment scam ..."

but I would still have to mention that it is called a scam in most of the reliable sources in which it is discussed. To not do so would violate NPOV and would also prevent me from proving that the subject is notable.
As regards the SEC's position, please note the following excerpt from an SEC press release about New Utopia reproduced in this source:

Today Judge Michael Burrage, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa Division, granted the Commission's request for an emergency restraining order to halt a fraudulent nationwide Internet scheme involving the offer and sale of a bogus $350 million bond offering. (emphasis added)

I'd appreciate your thoughts on the above. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 01:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can recall (and briefly scanning them), previous AFDs kept this article on the basis that it was a noteworthy scam. If we're now saying it wasn't a scam at all, shouldn't we just delete it? --kingboyk (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see it's been to DRV etc etc. Forget it :) The article as it stands is pretty good anyway, to my eyes. --kingboyk (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparently deleted and recreated

What is going on? There used to be a page on the Prince guy who runs this micronation, but it redirects here. Put it all on one page and delete this article and salt the page so it stays deleted and isn't recreated time and time again. Hu 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the section above, titled "Start again, please". The page was deleted as an OTRS action and I have e-mailed the deleting admin for clarification. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying here and deleting the AfD from the article. I admit I got a bit flustered when the AfD went to a closed debate. Hu 23:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. FYI, for future reference, an article that has previously been nominated for deletion may be renominated through use of Template:afdx. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

why not just at lwrite some small notes that it is not fraud and short summery so it dont get this is a fraud stuff her in the 3 weeks somboday can make a good artickel ? and it should not be ahrd to look for inmtation to just put a small temprory summery before a long artickel starts..

russia polar flag

dont the russia flag on underwater northpole and the disucssen/comment on that stuff make new utopia more realisitc?

I don't see the connection, please explain. --ubiquity 21:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

becuse both projects did get much media hype, they did put up a flag in the water and talk abut ocean bed claims (just like new utopia and i think the same independcy / soverginy like new utopia is talking) and other countrys did not take it serious but then canda sent some marins to ther colonys and denmark did also talk abut also claims on ther areas and scandinavians experts(members of antarict studey organzation or antartic school ) said they also say it could be serious clamis first other countrys said they did not recognize ther flag is not the same thing between flag from new utopia and flag from russia in the water ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.84.194.140 (talk) 14:09, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

what abut a link to wikipeida abut solohq or linke to www.solohq.com website since the newutopia site do have link to it and to expalin what objectvism or new utopias version of it are ? solohq.com i belive is a lifestyle libertarian/hedonistic or a liberal objectevism that suport Tibor Machan and rodirk t loong version of it. *not rockweell instetut organzation or hopser redneck /racsitas palo libertaian objectvism * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.48.254 (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you repeat that in English please? --Gene_poole (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
sorry read it as it is saying not wasy to write when you dyslecttivck and not your 1. lanuges :)
Sorry, but if you don't speak comprehensible English, you really shouldn't be contributing to the English-language Wikipedia. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lazarus' Granddaughter

As Lazarus's Granddaughter I would Like to say that the critics here are so wrong they have to recorrect themselves over and over to the point that this article is Ridiculous and does not reflect anything at all that is going on today with the Principality of New Utopia. And my Grandfather Lazarus Long is 150% dedicated to the true builindg & development of New Utopia.

Perhaps you could enlighten us. What is "going on" with New Utopia? --Gene_poole 10:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Gee, what does he do with the extra -50%? ;-) --ubiquity 21:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Basic arithmetic is obviously not his strong point. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)