Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morac-Songhrati

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Garryq (talk | contribs) at 00:15, 25 April 2004 (delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page seems to be about a micronation of some sort. It is confused, information about Bermuda interspersed with info about an island in the South China Sea. Danny 11:09, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's because I was using the data on Bermuda as a Template. And yes, Morac-Songhrati could be refered to as a Micronation, although Micro-Colony is more accurate. --217.95.58.172 11:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • This micronation stuff is getting out of hand. As far as I can tell, this state is fictional. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 21:14, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • As far as you can tell? Please expand upon which quantifiable evidence you're basing this on? Failing that, I suggest you cease being so Hasty as to draw lines in the Sand between what constitutes a micronation 'worthy' of listing, and what does not. Last time I checked, Wikipedia was a site to provide facts. Thus, unless you can disprove it's existance, or add a more compelling reason to delete it, I suggest that it be left. After all, we have a page on Sealand, and Porto Claro. What makes them any more real than this?--Xanatos 2097 22:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe the fact that those places actually exist? RickK 22:52, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Sealand exists, at any rate. I'm not so sure about Porto Claro, but Porto Claro has strictly factual information about what it is, and does not attempt to confuse fantasy with reality. -- Cyrius|&#9998 00:39, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I deleted this under the speedy delete criterion that it was fictional history disguised to fool people into thinking that it was a real place. RickK 22:52, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry Rick, but I disagree. Unless you can definatively prove that Morac-Songhrati dosen't exist, I'm going to keep putting the article back up. In addition, Cyrius, can you tell me on what basis you say the content is a confused mass of fantasy/fiction? I'd be very interested to hear your comments --Xanatos 2097 10:53, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Anon votes don't count, Xanatos 2097, so unless you sign them you are wasting your time and ours. Support RickK's action on this. This is ridiculous. Andrewa 09:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes Andrewa, my bad. I did forget to sign that one. However, nobody has yet given any reason for beliving that this is ficticious. And I for one, would like to hear some reasons before people go deleting articles. --Xanatos 2097 10:53, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Adequate reasons were given above IMO. You've got it backwards I'm afraid, content needs to be verifiable, and unverifiable content is liable for deletion. If it's less than an article it goes to the talk page, but there has been no attempt to provide sources for any of this so far as I can see, and in this case that's essential. However your last edit before deletion does look interesting, and at present you need sysop status to see it. Would you like it restored, so we can have proper deletion debate? Andrewa 14:42, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, how about the fact that the countries disputing ownership of the Spratly Island group don't include the United Kingdom - China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei all claim at least some of the islands. The population is entirely soldiers from some of the above named countries. [CIA Factbook] The Phillipines control West York Island. The BBC has a number of news articles on these islands, none of which ever mention any civilian inhabitants whatsoever, let alone Britons (one link for example [BBC News]). No mention of "West York Island" is found in Hansard, indicating no particular British interest in that island. Where they do mention the Spratly Islands (e.g. 1 Mar 2002 : Column WA99, or on 20 Jan 1999 : Column WA99 - use the [Hansard search] for more ), they mention no British civilians in the region. In summary, I am unable to find any mention of a British claim from a number of reliable sources that would be particularly likely to mention any British civilians in the area. Conclusion - this is a made up claim of another countries' territorial property. Furthermore, this sort of thing threatens to add incorrect information to correct pages (currently both West York Island and Spratly Island Group are correct). Delete. Average Earthman 14:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: Yes, that's the sort of stuff we need. I've reinstated my delete vote, above. Andrewa 15:20, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok. Let's have a look at the facts. Fact 1 - The Islands are called the SPRATLY ISLANDS. The were first mapped by a BRITISH Captain Spratly, in 1880 (Not, 1763, as I initially thought). My reference for that fact? http://www.law.du.edu/ilj/online_issues_folder/whiting.pdf Fact 2 - The British built an Obseration tower on Itu Abu Island in the Mid 1800's. A simple search on google will provide evidence of this fact. Fact 3 - The British Settlments Act (1887, Revised 1945) grants British Citizens the right to claim, as crown territory, any land in which there is "no civilised government". It furthermore allows them to hold it "by act of settlment". As this act of Parliament predates the digitisation of the Parlimentary statues archieve, you can't find a copy of it on the internet. However, if you visit any UK library, and check their back archieve of Parliamentary Statutes, you will find that it is in there. Furthermore, if you check it's status, you will find that it has never been repealed. Fact 4 - The British government underwrites the security of ALL british citizens abroad. Fact 5 - The British government does not acknowledge the occupation of the Islands. It does not accept the residence of the citizens there. Hansard is not a definative work. It does not cover all British citizens abroad. Anyone who works with the Law can tell you that. These are the facts. Let's debate these, BEFORE we make any hasty changes. --Xanatos 2097 15:21, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete. BTW even if the territory was claimed by a civilian "for the Crown", doesn't mean the crown has to accept it. Xanatos 2097 seems to look on Hansard as some sort of CIA worled fact book. Hansard is a definitive work, noting on 20 Jan 1999 at Column WA99 that "Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government: To which country the Spratly Islands belong.[HL518]

reply from Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The Spratlys are claimed in whole or part by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. All except Brunei have established a military presence there, but all have declared their intention to resolve claims peacefully. Her Majesty's Government support no claimant and have encouraged peaceful resolution. "

The article is a fact/fiction mix discrediting wikipedia and should be deleted garryq 00:15, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Yes. Absolubtly. Look at that website. It makes the point that there WAS at one point, a REPUBLIC of Morac-Songhrati-Meads. It makes no mention of the new colony. As regards Cyrius' last post about the article, it was derogatory and excesively vicious, IMHO. In what way are these fatcs irrelevant? What facts would be relevant? If you expect me to fly to the Island and take a video journal of the goings on there, simply to satisfy your curiosity/disbelife, then you are severly mistaken. The information I presented ruled out the fact that the colony was 'impossible', IMHO. Further than doing that, I don't see how I can further prove it's existance, although I'll do my best to find information to answer any questions you may pose.

Incidentally, I find it very interesting though that MarkAlexander uses the existance of a simulated country to decry the existance of another entity, which is largely unrelated. I fail to see the link. Using the logic that seems to have been applied there, one could argue that if I set up a website saying that Taiwan is not a real country, then it isn't, and most of us would argue that were not the case.

Perhaps I've wandered off the point a little here. Nevertheless, I fail to see what else I can do to supress your disbelife. --Xanatos 2097 20:38, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I deleted it again. Quit adding false information. What part of "this website does not depict a real nation" do you not understand? RickK 21:41, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, that'd be the part where you say that it isn't a real nation. I argue that it is just as real as Sealand, and Porto Claro, which both have Articles. Infact, Porto Claro is actually declared, IN ITS ARTICLE to be an imaginary country. That'd be the part I don't understand. The Hypocrisy part. And until you can justify that, I'm going to keep putting it back up. As you will notice, the new article has nothing but the bare facts. Just like Porto Claro. Now, let's hear the reasons why you won't accept it, properly, and in a civilised manner, and, if the majority then agree with your POV, fine delete it. But lets discuss it first, like the civilised individuals we proport to be.--Xanatos 2097 21:58, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You still haven't provided references that say it is real, or even a notable fiction. Calling people names isn't a good strategy for convincing them you're right. You also might want to stop recreating the article. Admins tend to look unfavorably on doing that. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:31, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I had called anybody 'names'. The fact is that, further than proving that the existance of the colony is not impossible, and short of going there myself, I can't really do anything to convince you otherwise. Does anbody have a suggestion of what constitutes evidence of its existance? Because if they do, I, personally, would love to hear it. In my opinion at least, the burden of evidence should be as in a court of law - you have to prove that I am guilty of an offence (e.g. posting a false article) before you find me guilty and punish me (e.g. Deleting it). Whatever happened until 'innocent until proven guilty'?

As a side note, quite frankly, I don't really care that Admins will 'look 'unfavourably' on me recreating the article. I don't really 'look favourably' on it's continued deletion. I don't think it's a) Right, or b) Fair to delete the article while the debate is still in progress. --Xanatos 2097 23:43, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)