Talk:Republic of Molossia

Should this be a candidate for deletion?

Please delete, I thought Wikipedia was a serious page, might as well add imaginary worlds children dream up.

If i started my own page on my backgarden as a micronation wouldn't that get deleted? This is absurd and as such should be deleted. it is not even recognised by the USA. 86.137.38.2 (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, this is a silly and pointless page Philbuck222 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard enough time convincing friends and family to use Wikipedia, and pages like this don't help. So some attention starved person in Nevada likes to pretend he has his own country. Who cares. Please get this off Wikipedia. Scottrick49 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not if your backgarden received coverage in a published book and a number of newspaper articles, television programs, etc. Been there, done that, survived the AfD. Molossia meets Wikipedia's notability guideline. PubliusFL (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that, technically, anybody who wishes to start their own country can under the Montevideo Convention. I've done a lot of cleaning up on this page. I see no reason why it should be deleted.--Lowbudgetmoviecritic (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's settled it, I'm going to create my own micronation when I get back from work. Viva la revolutione! Philbuck222 (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! If you get non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, let us know and we'll even write up a Wikipedia article for you. :) PubliusFL (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't worry I will. First thing I'll do is Declare War on the Republic of Molossia and get papers to write about that! Philbuck222 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This should be deleted. Perhaps another go at AFD? The coverage in the refs appears to be passing reference or sources lacking independence from the subject. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Let's get this article deleted! One more article that has been unduly created that will now be deleted. The quality of wikipedia will strive! Philbuck222 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was in the paper once when I was 3 years old. Can I have my own Wikipedia article? No, seriously though - this is nonsense. Let's delete it. Bazonka (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Although there is a great deal of controversy surrounding the legitimacy of Molossia, it has been mentioned several times in print, television and online. Although a cleanup could certianly be useful, it would be pointless to delete the article.--Spymoviefan (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article and added some NPOV content and then Spymoviefan deleted it with more in-universe style promo. I reverted. -Colfer2 (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Spymoviefan (talk · contribs) continues to delete my NPOV edits, I continue to revert. Would any other editors like to try to improve this article? One edit Spy makes is to remove the adjective "humorous" describing the news coverage. The word seems accurate to me. Other opinions? -Colfer2 (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is non-trivial coverage about this in multiple reliable sources then they should be in the article. Currently all we have as a reliable source is the Lonely Planet guide. Unless the sourcing is improved, the article is liable to be deleted. (BTW wikinews is not usually consider a reliable source) Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Ooops I just noticed the article has several references in a seperate references section. Ideally the references should be converted to inline but as it stands it seems the subject is noteable Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of editing on this artilce today, adding sources and images, creating new subjects, adding links, etc. I think it would be best to keep it this way for the time being, until new information can be added. I tried to make it more NPOV, as the previous version was, in my opinion, downplaying Molossia as little more than a joke. Although the country may be humorous, the people there appear to take themselves seriously. It would only be decent to respect their views. The current article does not glorify Molossia, it only delivers the facts straight from their website and other sources. --Spymoviefan (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the edits were were entirely non-NPOV, without reliable sources, nor an external perspective. Humorous, but it seems Spymovie fan should develop his or her own wiki project for Molossia where he or she can develop his or her ideas without hindrance. -Colfer2 (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I undid Colfer2's edit as the previous version was written by Philbuck222, who has stated that he wants this article to be deleted, and therefore did not make an NPOV contribution to it. I see nothing that glorifies Molossia in my version, everything is taken straight from the Molossian Government's website. It would appear that there is a great deal of bias towards Molossia from Wikipedians, which is evident on this discussion page.--Spymoviefan (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Refs from Molossia.org are not neutral. Nor would an article about the USA be based solely on White House press releases. Get real colonel, I am trying to save this article. Your edits will lead to its deletion. -Colfer2 (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a cesspool of lobbyists and special interest groups who gatekeep "serious" articles. We need a little brevity. Also, taking wikipedia seriously is a big no no. Noobie mistake.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.123.204 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, they're just trying to basically act like its justice to get this page deleted when it has a frequent number of sources and news coverage to get a page 68.57.163.100 (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Future editors: Molossia is not a joke, roleplay, or purposefully fictional story

Molossia seems to be interpreted by Wikipedia users as a deliberately fictional story or a joke more often than not. I am not asking you to believe that Molossia is on-par with actually recognized microstates. I am not stating that you should take Molossia seriously. However, Kevin Baugh and other proponents of micronations believe their efforts to be real, per interviews and articles written by them. Editing this article to state that it is a joke, satire, roleplay, or a fictional story will cause Baugh and his associates to edit bomb this page. They have previously attempted to start fights on forums and social media sites, as well as harass Wikipedia users, for claiming it is anything but a serious political movement. Adding any information on Molossia's legitimacy (past objectively correct facts, such as being unrecognized by the UN) should be treated as a subjective opinion. It is best that Molossia be left without any indication of it being real or fake, to prevent arguments from both sides. Yes, it is hard to take seriously, but a large group of people- including its leader- take it very seriously. If you wish to debate Molossia's legitmacy, the MicroWiki, a wiki site exclusively operated by micronationalists, can appropriately host information like that. CherriGasoline (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to modify our behavior because of the potential threat of Baugh and his associates edit bombing the page. That's already been happening for years anyway, so what's new? Further, protection can deal with that. We only need to follow our own policies on verifiability and the use of reliable, secondary sources to support content in the article. Considerable swaths of content that have been added without these elements in the past have been removed, and will continue to be removed, not matter how much Baugh and his associates try to edit bomb the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

secessions

Two editors have added content about secessions from Molossia. Content like that requires independent reliable sources. Sites set up by the seceeding parties are neither independent nor reliable. Reddit (and any other user-generated content) is not a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Add pings so the editors are aware: @Photostar625 and Deconos435:. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, what would be considered independent/reliable? Photostar625 (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Start with the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Schazjmd (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I know this is weird but, Why isn't there a flag page in this page, i know its blue white and green top to bottom?

Nail123Real (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion that resulted in the micronations infobox determined that flags should not be included as an infobox field. Schazjmd (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

oh okay Nail123Real (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: The RfC you cited seems to actually say that "symbols" may be used if there is RS proving it to be in use by said micronational entity and not e.g. fan-made or unofficial. "Certain symbols which are recognized or reported by reliable sources may be appropriate to add, as important information", in which case the flag of Molossia is. It is merely discouraged ("generally against"). ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 00:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Trying to thread a way through that RfC that would still allow a flag misses the point of the RfC. In the case of this article, the only secondary source in the article used about the flag is a link to a BBC video that, outside of Kevin Baugh himself talking about it, spends exactly 2 seconds with one spoken sentence talking about the flag. This is a non-starter. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Not trying to thread; the wording for points 2–4 is evidently different from that of 1.a and 1.b. 2–4 is written ardently and cites consensus, such as including unrecognized in the infobox; 1.b states no consensus, and 1.a clearly states that such symbols are allowed with RS or on a discussion-by-discussion basis. If flags etc. were disallowed it would clearly state such like it does in points 2–4, not use the word "generally" nor possess the excerpt I added which outlines the provisions for including such symbols. The statement "flags should not be included as an infobox field" seems erroneous to me per the actual RfC result, which I read before making any assumptions or comments on this talk page. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 17:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

If you feel that including the flag is warranted based on 2 seconds and 1 sentence, I doubt you'll find consensus here to include it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

christ, 4 replies in one notification Nail123Real (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)