Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morac-Songhrati

Article Morac-Songhrati listed on WP:VFD Apr 23 to Apr 29 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

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)
 * Your "facts" are either irrelevant or unverifiable. You still haven't shown that any of the information about the so-called colony itself is true. -- Cyrius|&#9998 19:10, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone was in any doubt: http://www.angelfire.com/ri/songhrati/disclaimer.html Markalexander100 19:30, 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)


 * You still don't get it. It is very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to prove that something does not exist. All we can say is that there is no evidence that it does exist. If you actually want to prove it, show us some newspaper articles or official government publications or at least something. You haven't even tried yet. All you've shown is that it could exist, which is not proof of whether it does exist.


 * As to name calling, you said my comment was "vicious" and called everyone hypocrites.


 * You also seem to be confused about what this vote is about. This isn't about you. It's about the article. And you still haven't offered any evidence whatsoever that this place exists.


 * When I talk about admins tendency to "look unfavorably" on recreating deleted pages, I mean that it can be interpreted as vandalism, which leads to actual action against you. -- Cyrius|&#9998 00:28, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Britain has no claim on the Spratly Islands, confirmed in the House of Lords in 1999, so of which country is Morac songhrati a micro-colony? The 20 colonists may have offered sovereignty to the Crown, but the Crown is not obliged to accept – as in 1964 when Elizabeth II declined sovereignty over Rhodesia. The seurity of British Nationals is not universally guaranteed; anyone choosing to live in a war zone does so at their own stupid risk. And if a group of islands occupied by the armies of five countries isn't a war zone in waiting what is? The article content is self contradictory and deliberatly confusing. An accurate article could remain, especially if it indicated why the claims of six nation states should be disregarded in the favour of 20 utopians. garryq 00:55, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe the Crown isn't obliged to accept it. That is why I said that it was 'unrecognised'. Secondly, the Spratly Islands are not a warzone - under the agreement signed by the 10 members of ASEAN on the 5th November 2002, an agreement was reached which stated that the issue of soverignty would be resolved without rseulting to force as had previosuly been the case.

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/11/04/daily21.html

As the area is not considered a warzone, the inhabitants are, as I understand it, protected by the crown.

Secondly, I wholly understand what Hansard is. I'm a Law Student at UCL. And I am fully aware of it's shotcommings.

Thirdly, the events occuring in Rhodesia ran conterary to teh British Governments policy of returning soverignty to the people - decolonisation. Last time I checked, the GOVERNMENT (not house of lords) had made no recent resolution on the future of these Islands.

Thirdly, I still maintain that the have the right to claim it under the Settlments Act 1945.

Cyrius, if my comments have come accross as being offensive, that was not the intent. I wholly accept that this is not a debate about me, however, when people start slandering my trustworthyness, saying that I am 'deliberatly misleading people', then I tend to get a little annoyed. I'm just relaying facts here as my friend told me. Don't shoot the messenger.

As regards the admins; perhaps they may view it as vandalism. But I fail to see what sanctions they could impose on me, realistically. I don't want to appear a Vandal; I just think they should hang-fire from deleting it until the debate has finished.--Xanatos 2097 12:26, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I've just written, and put a letter to Lord Tebbit in the post, requesting that he raise the question with the government, and, fingers crossed, we ought to have an acceptable answer soon.--Xanatos 2097 13:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Woah! What a lot of conversation to wade through.  Can we admins possibly have a succinct summary of the votes for and against deleting this article here at the bottom for when we come to taking it off vfd?  Cheers.  I vote to delete by the way. -- Graham  :) | Talk 21:40, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Xanatos has seen fit to put this here for the third time. I'm not going to delete it again because I'll wait for the vote, but he had better abide by the decision of the VfD vote, or he'll be banned if he recreates it after (note I say after, not if) it's finally deleted. RickK 23:44, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm new here; this is fascinating. Surely, this micronation does not, for all practical purposes, exist. I did a Google search for "morac-songhrati", which yielded 184 references to "morac-songhrati-Meads". I went to the first one: http://www.angelfire.com/ri/songhrati/ - although the main page welcomes the visitor to the "official" web site for the Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads, the "Disclaimer" page says: "First things first; this website does not depict a real nation."

The second site, http://flagspot.net/flags/spr.html - describes various flags that have been designed by the various claimants to various combinations of Spratly Islands over the years. This site describes the islands as "uninhabited".

The third site, http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Cultures_and_Groups/Micronations/ - Yahoo Directory Micronations, contains a link for the Islands, but it goes back to the first site I mentioned - the fake one set up by the law student.

Seems to me it's self-evident from the above that this micronation doesn't exist in any tangible, real-world sense. Xanatos' disputed entry mentions that 20 Britons founded a colony there in 1998, but there is no mention of this in any items I've turned up - not even in the latest entry concerning the islands at the BBC News web site, dated Monday 19 April, which reports that Vietnam has begun shipping tourists out to the islands on sight-seeing tours (to the great annoyance of the Chinese). If there were 20 or so Britons camped there, and who'd been there amongst the garrisons of troops for the last six years, I'd be willing to bet the BBC would have mentioned them and their "colony" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3638323.stm ). Older BBC News related items go back to March 1998 - no mention of 20 Britons hoisting the Union Flag over the Spratlys.

So (if I may be so bold as a newbie) I vote: Delete.

PS As a law student, Xanatos should know that telling untruths about someone via the written word is "libel", not "slander".

Elidorius 01:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Duh - I see I've repeated info that markalexander100 outlined above - my apologies. Newbie inexperience. I've now edited it down. Elidorius 01:50, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Markalexander100 06:49, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Firstly, "Slander is a defamatory statement expressed in a transitory medium such as verbal speech." Note, the SUCH AS. This does not mean that Slander is exclusivley Verbal. I'd argue that the discussion here constitutes a transitory medium, however, where or not it is, is simply an interesting, but unrelated moot point.

Secondly, just because you can't find a website on something dosen't mean it does not exists. If I was on a deserted Island, would I really have a) time, b) inclination or c) the resources to make a website. Plus, as it's such a remote place, it's doubtful whether or not people would notice it.

That notwithstanding, I agree with Elidorius - I am suprised that it isn't listed in the BBC article, and has not been noticed by the other nations in the area. I can't explain either of these issues.

Ultimately, your going to delete it. It's not an important article, and has proved difficult to validate. As the majority support deletions, this, IMHO, is very much the right thing to do. However, the point I have been trying to make all along is that it's important to hang fire on deletions, until debate has finished. That, and sometimes having a little faith that an article could be correct, even if we can't prove it. Nobody was ever able to find evidence to categorically disprove Morac-Songhrati's existance. The best you could do was to say it 'didn't appear' to exist. Sometimes, I don't think, that's enough. By and large, the evidence leveled against this article came from sites which are not definitive works, and when definitive works were quoted, they did not directly answer this question.

Finally, I find the arrogance of some of the wikipedians gauling. For example, RickK's use of the word 'after', implies a certain ammount of conceit. While it's obvious that the article will be deleted, I don't think it's right to be so self assured. It's rude, and offensive. There really is no need to be aggressive.

I just hope we all learnt something from this rather sorry affair.--Xanatos 2097 07:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Hold on, you're claiming there are 20 civilians gallavanting around on the largest island in a heavily disputed island group and claiming it for a country which doesn't want it, when there are armed forces that do want it and claim it? And no-one notices? Quite simply, there has been no evidence presented yet to indicate that this occured, and all the evidence that has been presented strongly suggests it doesn't. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a court of law - pages are not true until proven false. The entries should be verifiable, and, as yet, the page in question here definitely has not been verified. Average Earthman 11:20, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I've learned not to try to reason with people who refuse to provide evidence to back up their assertations. As I have already stated, it is a near-impossibility to disprove the existence of something. The best we can say is that there is no evidence that it does exist. You still haven't provided any evidence that it does exist. -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:49, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * And on numerous occasions I've asked what people would consider to be evidential proof. In this case, I reiterate, I can't think of anything that would convince you of it's existence (short of going there and taking a load of photos, and even then, I'm not sure you'd belive it). It is a near-impossibility to PROVE the existence of it! Comments?--Xanatos 2097 10:34, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well I have a world gazetteer which is a very reliable source for world politics and covers every single state in the world no matter how small. Even Pitcairn is covered and that only has a population (at last count) of 32. Morac Songhrati doesn't even get a mention as a subset of another country and if the things you claim happened actually happened, it would definitely be reported in this book because that's why this book exists in the first place: to report succinctly on those parts of the world that traditionally don't get a mention. The book is The New Internationalist World Guide, published every two years by the New Internationalist magazine. Now if what you are claiming is true, I suggest you contact the New Internationalist at their mailing address at:
 * Simply any reference whatsoever to the events you claim happened by any reputable source (e.g. BBC News, Hansard, Reuters, CNN, Phillipines news source, Vietnamese, Chinese, Taiwanese). Or even slightly reputable. As opposed to someone writing fiction on some angelfire website. Average Earthman 11:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Let me make it totally clear. I DID **NOT** reference a site writing fiction on angelfire. Somebody else did that. I never once said that I was reppresenting that country. As far as I am concerned, that is indeed fiction. The article I added, while sharing common elements, was not. I did not claim any of the frankly, ludicrous statements they made (e.g. Southwark Cricket Club) were true. And, as we have established, this story has not been covered. By anybody (to the best of my knowledge). That makes it difficult to prove, but does not make it untrue. If my dod dies tommorow, no reputable source will cover it. But it does not make it any the less true. If I write a letter to an MP, there will be no record of it, but it will still be true. Ultimately, some things just can't be proved. And, for the time being, this will be one of them. at some point in the future, however, somebody will come back with evidence of the truth of this matter. Until such time as that, I will wait....--Xanatos 2097 12:28, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * New Internationalist
 * 55 Rectory Road
 * Oxford
 * OX4 1BW
 * United Kingdom
 * Telephone +44 (0) 1865 811400
 * Email ni@newint.org

and ask why they haven't reported on any of this stuff before now. Even if only to read about other stuff I recommend it as a damn good read. -- Graham :) | Talk 15:39, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll look into it. As I've said before, I'm really not sure what I feel about this country, I just wanted to see it get a fair hearing. Purely out of interest, does New Internationalist feature Sealand? --Xanatos 2097 16:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That it's off the coast of Suffolk and hasn't been formally recognised by anyone? Yes. -- Graham  :) | Talk 16:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No vote - The only reference that seems credible is this one: saying "In addition there have been a number of private individuals who have asserted territorial rights (sometimes in conflict with each other) under the names of the Kingdom of Humanity, the Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads, the Principality of Freedomland, the Free Territiory of Freedomland, and the Republic of Koneuwe. " - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 17:01, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Francs200. Texture, the Morac-Songhrati on that page isn't the same one I was talking about. Although, if that counts as a credible reference, I'll come back in a few months when I have a bit more evidential support.--Xanatos 2097 18:13, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Postdlf  4:12 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would be happy to see the topic return with a decent reference. BTW, I was surprised to see that an article being voted on was deleted repeatedly. --Zigger 23:46, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * Delete. An article devoted exclusively to the original Republic would be useful... but it wouldn't be listed under this name. -Sean 03:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * When I bring back this article, I intend to bring back an article on the Micro-Colony, with supporting evidence. Not an article on the republic. Purely out of interest, why would an article on the original republic not be listed under this name? What would be so useful about it? And, why should it be devoted exclusivley to the republic?--Xanatos 2097 06:41, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Summary of votes:
 * Delete: Danny, Cyrius, RickK, Andrewa, Garryq, Graham, Elidorius, MarkAlexander100, Average Earthman, Postdlf, Zigger, Sean
 * Keep: Xanatos
 * Neutral: Texture

End discussion