This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just a thought
Just a thought - if such a nation really ever got off the ground, so to speak...how would they maintain their population if the citizens are not...naturally inclined...to...naturally reproduce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.172.9 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 28 December 2005
that's a good one :) well, probably by emigration. Kirils 00:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Tongue in cheek, I'll bet that immigration would work better than emigrations... :-) --Ssbohio 13:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
They really wouldn't be any different in that respect than the Vatican. Besides, some gay couples do intend to raise children, whether it be through adoption or a surrogate spouse. SoapTalk/Contributions 18:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
So how would you make sure the child grows up gay?Olenhanmina (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
(I'm pasting this into the talk page of all the micronation category articles.)
I've just started a template for the micronation infobox, based on the Sealand box. I've also written usage guidelines on it's talk page. I'd like to please invite any interested people to go over its talk page to discuss the template itself, along with my guidelines. As a demo of the template, please see Lovely (micronation), which I just edited to use the template. --Billpg 23:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Ill Son
That Ill son I didn't know they Had Gay nation Well ya should be ha[ppy that The "Man ain putting you down
Good Luck to them
I say if Catholics can have there own country (Vatican) and Jews can have there own country then why not Gay and Lesbian People, however the author of the story was clearly a sacked member of the former government untill his comments were removed.
Sexual orientation should be given the same legal deferential status as religious beliefs? Get real... Equality is the desired result, not 'special status'.
If the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands were granted Sovereignty by the United Nations, and had the same status as The Vatican or Israel then the Government of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom could bring those nations who discriminate against gay people before the international court. Only Sovereign States have access to the International Court not people or groups. So by having there own State or 'Special Status' as you have put it, would allow this to happen and would stop nations such as those in the Middle East from putting homosexuals to Death. Some times in a cruel world 'Special Status'is required so that equality can be achieved.
The story was almost certainly written by a former member of the government, but are the tribulations inherent in the founding of the micronation not relevant?
unprotection
most of the info from the article has been officially removed just as the vandals wanted. I think the page may be unprotected now. Kirils 23:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I find it rather dubious that the Australian government would tell the gay government that there was a right of unilateral secession. Compare the UK's response to Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence. What did the Australian government say, exactly? Gazpacho 11:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a letter from the Leader of the Opposition, not the Australian Government, and it only comments on the gay marriage laws, not the secession issue. What is it meant to show?? 82.153.109.140
I Say Keep it and do not delete.
The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom got wide press coverage in Australia and within the worlds media and is part of the history of the Coral Sea Islands and is an historical fact.
Critical re-work is necessary
This article does not reflect the recent developements of the group and suggests a smoothed view on the Kingdom's history. Not a word about the frequent change of governments/assembleys, the dismissal of all officials upon an argument over a bank account and finally a successfull palace revolution with dismissal of HIM Dale. There were accusations of not documented claims provided by HIM Dale, threatened law suits by and against HIM Dale and a number of gay people who have paid 50 to 100 USD for a passport and later regreted this bitterly. All in one, the article requires a radical re-work. It shouldn't serve as mere propaganda contribution from one party.
Look for the (old) website: http://www.gaykingdom.org and you will realize that the article not at all reflects the current condition of the Kingdom.
And, please sign your contributions when you insert passages into other people's textes, OK?
Vanrozenheim 16:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The (old) website: www.gaykingdom.org can not be refered to as it has no contact email or contact address to confirm what they are saying is true and it appears that the site has not been updated for nearly a year. It has nothing about the Kingdom, its government, nor has it anything about the group titled Unified Gay Tribe who appear to be behind the web sites statements.
The current official web site of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands is the most recent and uptodate http://www.gayandlesbiankingdom.com and at least all emails to them are answered, something the other groups dont do. The current Administrators who were appointed by the Crown after the governments dissmissal have confirmed to me that HIM Dale is Sovereign and have also provided to me as part of my research copies of letters and documents that formally dissmissed the old Government and that outlined the reason for the crown doing so. There was no such "Palace Revolution" It appears the statement made by the sacked Prime Minister on the www.gaykingdom.org web site is one of sour grapes and it is impossible to verify as no one from the "Unified Gay Tribe" can be contacted. As stated I have researched this group and it is interesting to note that even breakway groups of the Kingdom like the Gay Republic group have had to endure threats of law suits from its members the most recent being from a member called Gunther so it appears this sort of thing happens all the time in all of these groups. Sadly unless things can be proven with documented proof it is not possible to base information on rumour.
I cannot imagine that the GLK's former Chief Justice Bill Freeman wouldn't answer any request, if you ask him properly. There is still the Yahoo Group existing, where some members and the "government" are posting from time to time: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gaykingdom/ There you can find all the answers and the true history of the group. Vanrozenheim 16:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
NPOV
This article in its current state appears to have evolved into a self-promotional exercise, fought-over by various members of the group, to the point where it's now a long way from conforming with Wikipedia NOV standards. I propose to begin re-writing it over coming weeks, and excising a lot of the unverifible content, unless anyone has any particular objections - or can provide links to 3rd party sources for verification. --Gene_poole 01:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
I feel the article is ok and should not be re-written and should be protected, it is clear that much of the rumour and promotional exercise of various members of the group are unproven and therefore the article should not be used as a propaganda from the sacked members of the group. The http://www.gaykingdom.org web site has no email contact details to verify its comments and so can not be taken seriously. At least the official web site http://www.gayandlesbiankingdom.com has a contact email and all emails I have sent them have been answered. It is very hard to re-write an article if the web sites that make statements have no contact address to verify facts. It is my understanding that the selling of passports ect was one of the reasons the Sovereign sacked the government as he and all the Australian members of the group were opposed to this scam even the Australian elected member to the gay government refused to be part of this scam and was forced to resign by the Americans before the Sovereign stepped in and sacked the lot of them. Much of the problems came from the American members of the GLK including the Chief Justice and Prime Minister both Americans who were behind the passport scam resulting in there sacking by the crown.
The information I have recieved from the current government of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom is the the country is moving forward under the two Australian Administrators who were appointed in July 2005 by the crown to replace the sacked government and it seems a case of sour grapes by the Americans who are behind much of the vanderlism. The current article as it stands has web links to the various rebel groups and much of there propaganda is contained in there individual web pages and untill they put contact email address on there site and can be contacted and there statements can be proven the current article should remain as is and should not be edited or changed.User:wowfm17/Jan/06
The problem here is that (1) the article does not conform to Wikipeda's NPOV standards and (2) there is no independent documentary evidence verifying either most of the allegations contained within it, or your statements on this discussion page. --Gene_poole 03:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I find this whole thing most entertaining! There are only four people who know the whole story. Dale Anderson, Bill Freeman, Jon, Lord Protector, and myself Jaix Brooks.
First off, Vanrozenheim was never a member of the last functioning Parliament. He withdrew his name prior to the election. The Parliament designated me, Jaix Brooks, as President of the Parliament. Parliament then started an investigation into the "Emperor's" conduct vis a vis the "war with Australia", trips to Cato, suitability of Cato to support occupants and "passports". Another point of contention was Anderson's perceived right to nullify Parliaments wishes.
It came down to the point that Anderson was prepared to dissolve an elected Parliament to get his way.
Parliament struck first and reduced Anderson's status and then later removed him as "Emperor".
He retained the "Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea" moniker, Mr. Freeman et al became the "Gay Unified Tribe", and myself, other Parliamentarians, and like minded GLBT citizens reworked our organization into the "Gay and Lesbian Commonwealth Kingdom". I was selected as Prime Minister. We set up a constitutional limited Duarchy, with a Gay Duarch and a Lesbian Duarch as dual Head of State. We strove for a balanced western style parliamentary democracy.
We have plans to negotiate for a territory that suits our needs of occupancy and independence. We have just received reports from a scientific expedition relating to resources, geoforms, flora and fauna, on a suitable tract.
Our quest for a sovereign state is a long term endevor, measured probably, in decades. We stay below the radar, so we do not accumulate resistance from powerful entities before the fact.
I would also say that the Gay Homeland group has been very collegial and friendly to us in the GLCK. As a "think tank" they are without parallel.
We do not essay to have a space on Wiki, primarily because we do not care for the unending writing and re-writing.
We have better things to do frankly.
If anyone here has questions, or even comments please feel free to ask. Our Foreign Minister, Addreinne Soissons,
will be most happy to answer. write to: foreignmin@aol.com
Best of Luck,
Jaix Brooks
PM/GLCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.155.223 (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Then why dont you contact the current gay government via there official web site at http://www.gayandlesbiankingdom.com like I did and ask for the evidence and facts. --Wowfm 17 Jan 06
Firstly, it is rather disingenuous of you to suggest you are not a member of the group in question when there's a fairly high probability that you are, given the tone of your comments and your detailed familiarity with the events allegedly surrounding it. Secondly, it is a fundamental precept of documentary writing that unless infomation can be verified by an independent third party source it cannot be considered reliable, and must be presented as an unsubstantiated allegation or claim, rather than as a fact. --Gene_poole 04:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Firstly get your facts right!! I am not a member of any of the groups, but a uni student who is doing a study on Micronations and I have researched this project from a study point of view for the past 6 months. I have taken the time to try and contact all parties that could be contacted and have read all the rebel groups website as part of my study, something you clearly have not done! If you had you would note that the site that most of the rumour comes from is the www.gaykingdom.org web site and the author of this site does not have a contact email, so it is rather disingenous of you to suggest you are not a member of one of the groups., given your tone to me. What makes you therefore any more independent than me. --wowfm
I don't intend to repeat myself again. The long and short of it is that unverifiable content cannot be promoted as being factual. As a university student you should be familiar with this principle. --Gene_poole 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I dont intend to repeat myself again either. What I have stated is fact, I have not included rumour, gossip or mistruths or comments that cant be confirmed. Just because you dont belive something Gene Pool does not make it untrue.I object to you to re-writing the article as you clearly are not an independent third party.wowfm
What you have stated are unsubstantiated allegations. Unless they can be verified in some independent source they are mere claims, and nothing more. They are most certainly not "facts" by any established definition of that term. You may wish to discuss these concepts with your university tutor if they still don't make sense to you. --Gene_poole 05:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I can testify that you did not request informations from the "Gay Homeland Foundation" group. The website of that website contains contact e-mail adress. This makes your other statements sound less credible as well. Why do you delete all critical remarks and let all the unproven positive (self-)statements stand? It is obvious, that this article is highly controversal so let the other informations on their right place as well!!! You say that you observe this project for 6 month now, what kind of argument is this? In the last 6 monthes there was almost nothing happening there. The new website exists since August 2005. Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gaykingdom/ and look for amounts of contributions there, the active phase of the group was mostly in December 2004 - May 2005. If you are an independent mind and take some time to read the contributions, you will realize that "HIM Dale" periodically (every 2 or 3 month) has lost support from his officials and either dismissed them or they went by free pieces. --Vanrozenheim 16:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I can testify that it is fairly high probability that you are the owner of the gay homeland site, given the tone of your comments and your detailed familiarity with the events allegedly surrounding it so this makes your statements less credible as that would make you a former ex member of the gay government with a grudge to grind and clearly your views are one sided. How would you know if I contacted the Gay Homeland Web site? you do not know what Uni I am studying at, my name, my email address or anything about me so what a stupid comment to make. I am independent and have since August last year reserched this group as part of my study on Micronations and this has taken me 6 months. Have you bothered to contact the current Administration? have you asked for statements, documents, legal information all this was provided to me by them. The web sites you have posted can't be trusted as the statements published on them can not be verified, of all the web sites you have put links to only two have emial address, the Gay Kingdoms official web site, and the Gay Homeland web site. The Unified Gay Tribe site has no contact information nor does the Gay Commonwealth site, and the gay Yahoo chat site is controlled and open to members only not all statements and request are published if these groups want to stand behind what they publish then they need to be able to be able to be contacted. The Gay Homeland site provided me with information in my research last year as did the Kingdoms current Administrators.
These are the facts and I have documented evidance to prove it
Fact: The Kingdom is currently administered by the Crown (HIM DALE) and the Australian administrators
Fact: The Crown dissmissed the Government in July 2005 and I have a copy of the dissmissal letter sent to me from the Kingdoms Lawyers Baker Johnson in Australia I can send you a scan of it if you like and it is official and has the Kingdoms coat of arms and crown at the top:
Fact: The Gay Homeland web site was established by a former rebel German member of the Government, this person then placed gossip, missinformation and rumour against the Crown and had to withdraw the information published on the web site after legal action by the crown. (I have been sent copies of the legal letters sent to the owner of this site from the Kingdoms lawyers Baker Johnson as well) There has also been other legal problems with the gay homeland/gay republic web site with recent German members of the site threatining legal action against the owner of the gay homeland site as well.
Fact: The Gay Kingdom Yahoo Chat Site and the www.gaykingdom.org web site are owned and controlled by the sacked Chief Justice Bill Freeman. The Kingdoms Official Web Site www.gayandlesbiankingdom.com is owned by the current Gay Government and The Kingdoms territorial claim over the Coral Sea Islands is also "owned" or administered by the current gay government.
Fact: The Gay Commonwealth Group, The Gay Homeland/Republic Group and The Unified Gay Tribe Group have no homeland nor do they have any territorial claim. The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands does have a territorial claim and are in a legal battle with Australia over Sovereignty of the 780,000 square kilometer territory of the Coral Sea Islands.
Fact: One month after Administrators were appointed by the Crown to govern the Kingdom, the sacked Prime Minister and Chief Justice formed the Unified Gay Tribe they then published information on there web site denouncing there sacking, this site has no contact email address so it is immposibble to verify some of the arguments that they have raised,you cant rely on rumour or gossip or your own view Vanrozenheim particularly if you are a member of the gay homeland group with a grudge wowfm 18 Jan 2004
I am indeed the owner of the said website and I can testify that neither I ever was member of the government of the said kingdom, nor that you have ever requested any informations from us which was left unanswered. You are not independent, or why else should you delete the link to the Yahoo Group, where everything is documented and verifiable? The said Yahoo group allows everybody to become a member and download all the relevant informations from the file section; all the messages can be read without problems. The government of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom used to sell passports for over a year now and HIM Dale of course knew this and agreed to this policy. To state here that Bill Freeman and Enrique Pérez were responsible for that cheat, is entirely hypocritical and in bad purpose. Fact is indeed, that somebody tries to re-write the history here, just so as if that Yahoo group fiasko has never happened. --Vanrozenheim 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Inofficial history
The passages are permanently removed from the article in an attempt to rewrite the history. These passages shouldn't be deleted - instead they should be of certain use for any serious edition of the article. -- Vanrozenheim 17:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You can not use gossip and rumour as an attempt to push your grudge on others, most of the web sites you have posted have no contact email addresses nor can you back up any of the statements you have published with documented proof, it is clear that you are a former sacked or ex member of the gay government with an axe to grind and are not an independent third party -- wowfm 8:33 18 Jan 2006
Most certainly those websites do have a contact information (even if this would be not the case, you could search for a WHOIS-entry and get there an adress and a telephon number), and the only reason to delete the link to the Yahoo group is to suppress the most direct evidence of the true history of the Kingdom. This clearly violates the Wikipedia policy. --Vanrozenheim 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Where is the contact email and details for the www.gaykingdom.org and gay commonwealth site? could you please tell me where on there web page is it located as it clearly is not! neither site has a phone number, link or postal address so please tell me where the contact information is locatedwowfm
Here again the alternative version of the article:
The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands is a micronation established as a political protest by a group of gay rights activists based in southeast Queensland. On June 14, 2004, the group claimed the Coral Sea Island Territory and claimed independence from Australia after sailing to the largest island in the group-- Cato Island-- and raising the rainbow flag there.
Prior to the settlement of a few gay activists there, the islands were uninhabited. The small population is 100% non-indigeneous and homosexual. The secession was in protest at a decision to ban gay marriage made by the Australian parliament. The government is reported as being a constitutional monarchy, led by an emperor. The official flag is the rainbow flag, and the group offers citizenship to all LGBT people and their friends.
On 13 September 2004, the Kingdom declared war on Australia, giving notification of the state of war directly to the Australian government via a parliamentary letter of acceptance of the Geneva Convention, and also through the Swiss government. The Australian government did not respond, and the Emperor Dale I declared victory.
Parliament’s declaration of war, however, precipitated a governmental crisis, as the Emperor Dale I was aghast at the action. First, the Emperor challenged the Legislative Assembly’s authority to make war. Then, when recourse to the new country’s sketchy constitution convinced the sovereign that the Legislative Assembly had indeed acted within its proper purview, the Emperor threatened to abdicate. In the ensuing political battle, protesting what it saw as the Emperor’s overbearing mien, the entire Assembly resigned.
Adrift, a ruler without a government, Emperor Dale I granted emergency powers of governance to his Privy Council, consisting at this time only of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The move was in accordance with the laws of the Kingdom—laws earlier enacted by Parliament in anticipation of the prospect that the Emperor and his ministers might be arrested and imprisoned by the hostile Australian government. The Chief Justice set about appointing a new Privy Council, selecting four gay activists of his acquaintance who resided in several countries around the world. The Emperor tasked the new Privy Council with conducting a special election to reconstitute the Legislative Assembly.
But as preparations for the special election progressed in January of 2005, another governmental scandal began. While doing Internet research, one of the new members of the Privy Council came across discrepancies of fact regarding certain photographs that the Emperor had approved for use on the official government website. The full Privy Council was notified. After an inquiry that included close questioning of the Emperor himself, the Privy Council determined that several of the pictures at issue, which purported to depict places in the Coral Sea claimed by the Kingdom, did in fact show locations elsewhere. Worse, many of those images that did actually depict the Coral Sea islands were improperly filched from websites unrelated to the Kingdom.
Confronted with questions about the photos, the Emperor Dale first denied all wrongdoing, then prevaricated, and finally admitted his complicity in their mendacious display. The Emperor expressed profound contrition at his illicit acts, and sought to abdicate his office. His abdication was not accepted by the Privy Council. In fact, the Council pressed the sovereign to remain and indicated that a Lord Protector should be appointed to uphold the dignity and prerogatives of the Crown. As instituted, the office of the Lord Protector was to be imbued with the constitutional power of the Emperor; the Emperor himself would be freed from most legal duties and continue in office as a largely putative Head of State.
The Emperor agreed. The Privy Council, using its wide-ranging emergency powers to establish new governmental structures, declared a Protectorate.
Preparations for the Legislative Assembly’s special elections proceeded apace, while all information concerning the controversy was kept within the Privy Council, and away from the general citizenry. The elections were set for 25 January 2005, but a few days before voting began, news of the photo scandal leaked out on a message board devoted to discussion of Kingdom politics.
A popular uproar ensued, centered on the phony pictures themselves, as well as perceptions of a Privy Council cover-up. Citizens and potential citizens who had long questioned the propriety of a Gay government organized along monarchical lines seized on the dispute as illustrative of the sort of corruption inherent in monarchy. When nine centrists were elected to the Legislative Assembly, the anti-monarchists’ concerns were not assuaged.
In February of 2005, one member of the Privy Council resigned, disgusted by the vitriolic character of political debate between anti-monarchists and those who sought to defend the Crown. A week later, the Chief Justice of the Kingdom’s Supreme Court voiced a protest of anti-gay US government policy unrelated to the Kingdom in angry letters to the US Justice Department and the State Attorney of Alabama. Concerned that the letters constituted a violation of the US Neutrality Act, the US-native Lord Protector resigned, along with another member of the Privy Council.
In early March of 2005, the Chief Justice of the Kingdom’s Supreme Court (who headed the Privy Council) expelled the last Councilor because of a particularly pointed exchange she engaged in with anti-monarchist partisans. Those partisans, emboldened by their perceived success in running Privy Councilors out of government, broke into open rebellion. Without governmental standing, they nonetheless declared the January election nullified. Likewise, citing the Emperor’s complicity in the photo scandal, the anti-monarchists unilaterally declared a Republic. The Emperor, they said, had been toppled.
The newly elected Legislative Assembly sought to regroup. With all members of the first Legislative Assembly absent and incommunicado, and because questions about the pictures of Cato Island tended to cast doubt upon the veracity of all of the Emperor’s claims to the Kingdom’s early history, the Legislative Assembly called upon the Emperor to make a new trip to Cato Island. The documentation of the trip was to be ironclad, with photos not only of the plaque purported to have been placed there by the founders, but also of a GPS display of the proper coordinates of the place.
The Emperor resisted the calls for a new trip for several months, as few supporters of a Gay Republic left the Kingdom, setting up a separate organization.
Hurt by the defection of many of its citizens, the government of the Kingdom struggled on. A new Lord Protector was appointed; new Privy Councilors took the places of those who had resigned or were expelled; a Prime Minister was selected; the Legislative Assembly was renamed ‘Parliament’ and continued its slow deliberation on an overhaul of the legal skeleton that was the canon of the Kingdom.
Dale I finally made the trek to Cato in late May 2005, but his documentation of the expedition was rather less categorical than that which Parliament had asked for. Again uncertainty and suspicion blossomed between the Emperor and his councilors.
In July 2005, there arose yet another dispute. Six months earlier, the Emperor had voluntarily given up most of his power to the Lord Protector. But Dale I had long sought to retain one pet prerogative: the issuing of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom’s postage stamps. A company in the Untied Kingdom had been contacted about printing the stamps at about the time of the GLK’s founding. And the Emperor began to focus on this effort. As preparatory step to offering the stamps to philatelists, he set up a private, Australian bank account in his own name, expecting to make a fair amount of money at it.
The move put him at odds with Parliament and his own Privy Council, now ever-sensitive to any appearance of impropriety in the wake of two damaging royal scandals. Both bodies sought to dissuade the Emperor from his stated course. Dale I was unmoved by the concerns of his Councilors, his ministers and his members of Parliament. The new Lord Protector resigned in protest, along with one of the new members of the Privy Council. After weeks of argument, the Emperor broke off communication with his government.
Parliament acted, seeking a ruling from the Kingdom’s Supreme Court. In early August 2005, in docket Order GLK-07232005, the Court found: “that HIM Dale lacked the legal capacity to administer the treasury and in fact found him to be legally incompetent to the degree that his incapacity required the appointment of a Guardian to the Royal Person and Conservator of the Crown in the Office of the Lord Protector [the third such guardian]. It should be noted the High Court had earlier made a similar finding since the appointment of the first Lord Protector... as Guardian over the Royal Person and Conservator over HIM Dale's financial interactions with the Kingdom.”
On 20 August, Parliament was called into emergency session and passed seven Resolutions that effectively removed any and all legal, governmental and temporal power from the Emperor Dale I and proclaimed a formal separation of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom from the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands.
On that day, the Parliament also passed the Emergency Reorganization Act of 2005: the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands is currently governed by that Act, and is in a period of transition, with no one able to divine the character of its future.
'And here is the correct official version not written by you or by other rebel groups but by the Soveriegn himself a copy of this letter was sent to me by the Kingdoms lawyers as part of my research, it can be verfied and it has the Kingdoms Coat of Arms on it and is signed by the Sovereign the Kingdoms lawyers based in Australia have also confirmed to me that it is genuine you will note that it is dated July 2005, a month before the version you have written dated August 20 so proves there were no resignations but everyone was sacked and replaced by Australian Administrators.
Dear Prime Minister and Members of the Privy Council,
In accordance with the Constitution I hereby determine your appointment as
my Chief Adviser and Head of the Government. It follows that I also hereby
determine the appointments of all the Ministers in your Government as well
as members of the Privy Council.
I have given careful consideration to the constitutional crisis and have
made some decisions which I wish to explain.
It has been necessary for me to find a democratic and constitutional
solution to the current crisis over the Kingdoms stability and the supply between the Crown and between the
Government and Privy Council. The only solution consistent with the
constitution and with my office and my responsibilities, authority and duty
as Sovereign is to terminate the commission of the Government and Privy
Council and to arrange for a caretaker administrator able to secure supply and good government.
Because of the nature of our Constitution and because of its provisions the
Crown has a right to ensure that the Kingdom has a responsible government
one that is stable. If the government refuses to do this I have the
authority and indeed the duty under the Constitution to withdraw the
Commission of that Government.
My constitutional authority and duty require me to do what I have now done -
to withdraw your Commission and that of the Privy Council - and to appoint
an administrator to form a caretaker government.
The decisions I have made were made after I was satisfied that you as Prime
Minister and members of the Privy Council would not allow the opening of a
working bank account, your government sold passports and citizenship something I and my Australian counterparts are against, there has been many resignations and infighting to the point the government is unworkable. If the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom is to grow and our country is to prosper the government and its members need to be responsible.
By virtue of what has in fact happened there therefore came into existence a
deadlock between the Government, the Privy Council and the Crown on the
central the issue of stability and supply without which all of the ordinary services of
the government cannot be maintained.
The deadlock which arose was one which, in the interests of the nation, had
to be resolved as promptly as possible by means which are appropriate in our
democratic system. In all the circumstances which have occurred the
appropriate means is a dissolution of the Parliament and an appointment of
an administrator. No other course offers a sufficient assurance of resolving
the deadlock and resolving it promptly.
Parliamentary control of appropriation and accordingly of expenditure is a
fundamental feature of our system of responsible government. In consequence
it has been generally accepted that a government which has only an American bank account
and no local account cannot govern.
Our constitution provides a means, perhaps the usual means, of resolving a
disagreement between the Government and the Crown with respect to a proposed
law. But the machinery which it provides necessarily entails a considerable
time lag which is quite inappropriate to a speedy resolution of the
fundamental problems posed by the refusal of supply. Its presence in the
Constitution does not cut down the reserve powers of the Crown.
I am acting in accordance with my own clear view of the principles laid down
by the Constitution and on the nature, powers and responsibility of my
office.
It is with a great deal of regret that I have taken this step both in
respect of yourself and your colleagues.
I propose to appoint two administrators and to commission them to form a new
caretaker government.
Yours sincerely,
Dale R
July 2005
This document clearly shows that your version of events are wrong, clearly there were no resignations they were all sacked by the crown in July and replaced by Australian Administrators. With no Kingdom, no Government, no Crown and no Sovereign the sacked Prime Minister and Chief Justice who were behind the passport fraud and much of the trouble in the kingdom then formed the Unified Gay Tribe Group and have set about trying to discredit the legal Australian Admisitrators who currently govern the Kingdom via publishing mistruths, lies and rumour and removing all reference to their sacking. I have also got copies of the Kingdoms Bank Account as part of my research and again your version is incorrect, the Kingdoms Bank account is held in Trust and is in the name of "The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands", it is not in the Sovereigns name as you suggest and never has been, the Kingdoms Lawyers are the only signatories on the account. So again your gossip is proven not to be true. Your statements that the Kingdom is open to citizenship from GLBT members is not true as only Australian and New Zealanders are able to live or camp in the Kingdom due to Australian law who controls visitors to the disputed territory, other nationals can visit but are not able to stay there, and the current Gay and Lesbian Government has no citizenship registry so again your facts are clearly wrong.
I am also surprised Vanrozenheim as you seem hell bent on putting links onto this article to try and discredited it that you have forgotten to included the www.gaykingdom.com gay porn web site that members of the gay homeland/republic group linked to the offical government web site to try and hurt the movement resulting in another reason for the crown stepping in and sacking the lot of them. I am sure if you contacted the Kingdoms lawyers in Australia like I have done as part of my Uni research they will happily fill you in on this turn of events but as you seem to know a lot about the gay homeland/republic group and are clearly a member of it then you would know all about it, so why do you not post that link as well! you may also wish tp point out that all the groups you have placed links to are based outside of Australia with only the official web site being locally based. The Gay Commonwealth Kingdom and Unified Gay tribe are American based and your group Gay Homeland/Republic is German based and no one from these groups from my understanding has ever been to the Kingdom, only membes of the Official Australian based group http://www.gayandlesbiankingdom.com have been there. wowfm 18 Jan 2006'
All of this mind-boggling byzantine complexity is fascinating, but unfortunately none of it can be inluded in the article, because it simply can't be verified. Even such basic details as the names of most of the participants are not provided, added to which descriptions of such institutions as the "privy council" and "parliament" fail to identify how and when they were constituted, who their members are, how they function, or indeed anything at all about them, other than that they (allegedly) exist. The current descriptions imply that they are functioning institutions, when in fact they are likely to be largely ephemeral or non-existent. --Gene_poole 02:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Gene Poole I will give you credit where it is due and the rewriting of the article by you is fair and well done, it reflects what is happening and does not rely on rumour or gossip. Could you please keep an eye on the article to ensure it is not changed or vandalised by the various groups, maybe request it to be protected. Congrats on a job well done you clearly are an independent third party my appologise for my previous comments! wowfm 18 Jan 2006
I accept your apology. Checking on my many other contributions before making unfounded accusations would have revealed my history of unbiased editing of similar topics. --Gene_poole 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
@ Gene Poole: Tanks for the neutral correction of the article. Solely, I had to adjust the informations concerning the stated territorial claims: non of the groups who have left the kingdom actually claim the territory of the Coral Sea Islands. Whereas mentioning these groups as a part of Kingdom's history is essential, the names of their current or future leaders are of no real use in this article. They belong into any articles about those groups, if such should ever be created.
Vanrozenheim If these groups make no claims to the Coral Sea Islands why then do you keep including them if they make no claim to the Territory or "Kingdom", the only reason you dont want the owners name appearing in the article is because you have already confirmed you are Victor Zimmerman the owner of the German based gayhomeland/gayrepublic web site mentioned in it. So please stop vandelising this article. You clearly are not an independant third party. If you have such a one sided view why not post an article about your own gayhomeland/gayrepublic group under Micronations and if you did I am sure you would not appreciate it if someone linked that article on your group to the Gay and Lesbian Kingdoms Official web site so why are you continuing to do it to this article. It is well written by an independent third party so please leave it as it is and stop vandalising it. --wowfmJan 20th
I am requesting all of the conflicting parties above not remove either the list of links to the "secesionist" factions, or the names of the persons associated with those factions from the article. These details are important inclusons and should be retained. --Gene_poole 22:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Gene poole the original offical group (the original Australian group based in Queensland) who are behind the official web site Gay and Lesbian Kingdom do "claim" the Coral Sea Island Territory it appears that it is only the break away overseas groups that dont. --wowfm Jan 20
That has already been noted in the article. --Gene_poole 23:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
@ Gene Pole: OK, I will not interfere into the names - all of the involved parties are publicly known.
1. The point is, that the entity which is described here as "Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands" was known before mostly as "Gay and Lesbian Kingdom" and was designed to represent the gay and lesbian people on the international stage. The territory choosen to substantiate claims of the gay and lesbian people was merely a minor detail in the whole enterprise - neither does anyone live on Cato Island nor intends to live there. The original Yahoo Discussion group counts to day 700 members and was the place of the group's activity. The project was nominally headed by the so-called "Emperor", who practically didn't participate in the debates of the group, all the active work being done by Mr. Freeman, Mr. Peréz and Mr. Matlick.
2. In Sommer 2005 the real leadership of the Kingdom get overthrown with the "Emperor", whereafter the "Emperor" dismissed the officials alltogether and was himself declared not to be the "Emperor" of the "Gay and Lesbian Kingdom" by the parliament of the Kingdom, assisted by their Chief Justice. Alltogether surelly a very worren story - but the facts are as they are and are documented in the official "Gayzette" which was issued through the years 2004-2005.
3. The "separatist" groups represent therefore many of the former "citizens" of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom as it was originally designed and existed through the years 2004-2005. The people have been the constituent of the said kingdom, not the dubious claim of a tiny islet inmidst of Pacific. Two of them claim to be "Kingdoms" without territorial claims so far (Micronations indeed), the third is simply an association devoted to the idea of the gay state. It was tactically very clever from Mr. Anderson to initiate a re-set of the article "Gay and Lesbian Kingdom" as "Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands", in order to prevent other groups claims onto the succession of the deceased entity. The transparent attempts here to advertise the project of Mr. Anderson as a never interrupted developement under the name Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands would surelly serve his interests, but contradict the purpose and policy of Wikipedia.
4. All I suggest is not more than to include the history of the "Kingdom" in the years 2004 and 2005 into the article, in what neutrally written form however. It must not be permitted that one single person re-writes the history of an entire group just as it pleases him. I laugh about the "official" documents you provide us with: In the age of laser printer everyone with a PC can produce you any "official document" he wants, from a falsified birth certificate to an entirely invented chronicles. The official version of the history can be presented by Mr. Anderson on his own website. --Vanrozenheim 09:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Vanrozenheim everyone knows you are Victor Zimmerman who is behind the the gay homeland/republic web site fame (as posted in one of the above postings confirming this fact by your own hand, dated 18 of Jan 06). This article is very well written by a highly regarded independent third party that has a lot of expereince writing articles for Wikipedia and it is true and correct, the author has kept all links to the various groups and there version of events and it is written in a fair and responsible way.you can not base historic facts on rumour, lies, gossip or listen to people like you who own and control web sites like the gay homeland/republic site that have been established for the sole purpose to see the Kingdom destroyed --wowfm 1:18, 26 January (UTC)
From what facts do you derive your bold statements about the purpose of the gay homeland website? Maybe you wish to tell us your real name, mister/missis? --195.14.222.254 20:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*::: From the fact that legal action was taken by HIM Dale to have many of the lies removed from the site, this the Kingdoms lawyers achieved although Mr Zimmerman will tell you "it was due to a very convienent site rebuild" also members of the gay homeland/republic group have admitted in the forumn section of the Gay Homeland/Republic Site to linking the Kingdoms web site to a XXX Gay Porn Site is worthy of note. Because HIM Dale put the Kingdoms lawyers onto Mr Zimmerman and he was forced to remove the material Mr Zimmerman then secretly set up a second web site at gaykingdom.info to promote much of what was removed from his republic site, there was also a revolt within the gay homeland/republic group by its members due to the amount of anti gay kingdom information Mr Zimmerman had on the republic web site (he in fact had more information on the gay kingdom than he did to the republic group) and he was pressured into removing most of the gay kingdom info by the members of the group, unhappy with this he then tried to hide under the assumed name "Vanrozenheim" and started to use the Wikipedia web site and to edit this article to peddle his gossip, lies and rumours about the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom untill he was exposed and his remarks were removed by the editors. It is also interesting to note that this Article on the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom has come up for deletion 4 times, the last time less than 3 weeks ago, and I would not be one bit surprised if it was not Mr Zimmerman or his supporters who are behind nominating it for deletion. I can go on and on if you like. To answer your other question I live in Sydney Australia and have just completed a six month study on the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom as part of my research on Micronations for my course at Uni I am not gay nor am I a lesbian. As part of my research I have wrote to the Kingdoms lawyers and have got copies of all the Kingdoms official documents including the legal letters sent to Mr Zimmerman in Germany. I put it all down to the fact that Mr Zimmerman is jelous of the Kingdom and what it is achieving. Maybe if he spent as much time promting his republic group as he does promoting rumour and gossip about the gay and lesbian kingdom people may one day hear of his group and it will have its own page on Wikipedia. WOWFM 4 Feb 2006
Ardenn I understand your point but all I am saying is that Vanrozenheim AKA Mr Victor Zimmerman is not an independent third party as he himself has admited in this discussion in one of his comments above that he is the owner of the gay republic/homeland web site and hence the reason his comments have been removed from the article by Gene_poole. The article is perfect as it now is, it is true, well written by an independent third party and is correct, it should not be changed nor should it be deleted Wowfm 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I voiced my opinion that it should be kept, I'm just making sure you're aware of applicable policies and guidelines. Ardenn 06:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
@ Wowfm: Dear me, you really take it personally! I am of course not an indipendent party (as I have made clear from beginning), and my position is that the article in its previous form was one-sided and far from corresponding with facts. I have made every effort to contribute in a neutral way, and Gene Pole has done a good job while re-writing the article. You wrongly understand Wikipedia as a place for a cost-free ad: it is not. This particular page here is a place to discuss the article, not to wage personal feuds - as you may have noticed, I made here no comments about my personal feelings towards Mr. Anderson and the nature of his interests in establishing his "Kingdom". Vanrozenheim 15:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Additional comment: a quick look to the "delete" page will prove that I have voted to keep the article. Wowfm's attacks on me personally are of the same way as before he have offended each and everybody who has expressed an opinion against his one-sidedness. Vanrozenheim 16:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Vanrozenheim I did not write the article nor am I behind it so I have no idea what you are blabbing on about, if you did your homework you will see the article was posted one year ago on the 2nd of February 2005 by a guy named Edwards, so it has nothing to do with me. Why I have a problem with you and your supporters is you are trying to use the article to promote your own views. It is also interesting to note it was you who added your own web site link to the article, so how can you sit there and say "I have made every effort to contribute in a neutral way". I also find it amusing that you say you have "no comments about your personal feelings towards Mr. Anderson and the nature of his interests in establishing his Kingdom" when he has put his lawyers onto you, and you have three web sites established or you did untill recently all degrading the kingdom and peddling unproven gossip, lies and rumour, they are as you know the gaykingdom.info site, the gayrepublic.org site and the gayhomeland site. Most of the information has now been removed either because of legal action taken agianst you by the kingdom and Mr Anderson and by pressure from your own members who object to you putting so much information on the groups site about the kingdom. I also find your comment that "you are of course not an indipendent party (as I have made clear from beginning)" laughable. You did not make it clear who you were untill I exposed you a few weeks back, then when I did you objected to me posting your name in the article as the owner and founder of the gay republic/homeland site and tried to have your name removed and your comment that "you have made every effort to contribute in a neutral way" is crap!! how can you honestly sit there and say such a thing! Your other comment that "I wrongly understand Wikipedia as a place for a cost-free ad" I have no idea what your point is, as stated above I did not write the article, why dont you practise what you preach you are the one placing links to your own republic/homeland site in the article! I did not write or post the article, I have nothing to do with the kingdom, I have just researched it as part of my Uni course I am str8 so what is your point, I have only ever edited the article to replace your unproven gossip with the truth. The article is perfect Geene Poole has done a good job just let it be and leave it alone. wowfmFeb 06 2006
Hello,
If I may introduce myself, I am Dennis Donnelly, the Minister of the Interior for the Gay and Lesbian Commonwealth Kingdom. We are a successor group to the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea.
One year ago, we separated from the "old Kingdom". Our movement is based on western democratic model. We are a constitutional duarchy. i.e. we have a dual head of state. A Gay King and a Lesbian Queen. We did this because the "old kingdom" had a very limited link to Lesbians, who are at least as important as the Gays.
I do not want to get into specifics, but much of these articles are wrong, at least as far as my observation goes.
The "Commonwealth" does have e mail addresses for questions and or registering as citizen members or registering civil unions.
I do not want this to look like a "promo" for the Commonwealth, so I will just leave some addresses where you can ask questions. We are an AOL centered group, which we believe is easier to use than Yahoo. But our citizens are registered from all over the world.
You may write me @ GLKInteriorMin@AOL.com or
the Prime Minister, Jaix Brooks, @ Jaix99@AOL.com
Mr. Brooks was the only democratic elected President of Parliament, in the old kingdom. When we separated, he remained as President, then was selected as Prime Minister of the Gay and Lesbian Commonwealth Kingdom.
He was present and involved during much of the turmoil in the old kingdom.
Learning our lesson from the old kingdom, we have tried to make a civil and collegial network to further the foundation of a Gay/Lesbian nation.
We do not absolutely claim any territory at this time. Our vision is to occupy an island named Clipperton Island, or Ilse de la Passion. All of this takes a great deal of planning and logistics. After a colony is established, we plan to negotiate with France (Clipperton is an uninhabited territory, but was populated until 1915) and the European Union. We also would like recognition by the UN of course. This has a timeline of many years, if not decades.
Please feel free to write. We will answer as fast and as completely as possible.
Thank you for this opportunity. I hope I haven't broken the Wikipedia rules too much. I am a novice here.
Peace
D Donnelly
Minister of the Interior
Gay and Lesbian Commonwealth Kingdom
Titling question
If it's a kingdom, why is thier leader an "emperor"? Shouldn't it be an empire then? Or the sovereign be a king, if it's a kingdom?
-Alex, 12.220.157.93 05:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC).
I'd have thought their head of state should be a queen. Seriously though, internal consistency is not a strong point with many micronations. --Gene_poole 05:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Kingdom for Legal Reasons
It says on the official GLKCSI web page that they adopted a monarchy and not some form of a republic as under Australian law, a defacto prince trying to claim his crown cannot be tried with treason, and anyone attempting to stop him from claiming his crown can be tried with treason.
Essentially, they adopted the "bogus" (my opinion) title of Kingdom in order to keep from being tried in an Australian court of law, and it's worked.
This is according to their web page, though - I've done no fact checking with Australian law.
Images
Try as I might, I can't find any reasonable way of formatting this article to hold two images. Since the guy is barely notable anyway, I've moved his picture here. By all means move it back if you feel strongly about it, but good luck trying to make the page formatting look OK! :)
I'ver just restored this article to the most recent NPOV version again. The addition of large slabs of unsourced, unverifiable content dealing with the "kingdom's" internal administrative minutiae does not conform with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. --Gene_poole 04:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
what exactly is in contradiction with npov policy? -- tasctalkdeeds 12:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The addition of unreferenced, and therefore unverifiable content is entirely inappropriate. Either provide references or stop adding such content. --Gene_poole 13:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
please, indicate which content seems to you unverifiable by inserting fact template. stop reverting, thanks. -- tasctalkdeeds 13:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Everything in the section that I have removed has clearly been inserted by someone conversant with the inner workings of the group. It is all totally unverifiable. --Gene_poole 13:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If you cannot work constructive, please refrain from editing wikipedia. -- tasctalkdeeds 13:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's content policies before making any further changes to this article. The effect of your reversions is to insert unverifiable, POV nonsense content into this article, which is entirely inappropriate. --Gene_poole 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Didn't i explained myself? provide examples of 'POV nonsense', request citation. Noone is interested in you vague statements. -- tasctalkdeeds 13:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
POV nonsense:
Many in the gay community (how many?) have asked (where?) why the Board (of what? who is on this "board"? who elected them? where is this "board" registered?) chose a Monarchy over a Republic as the gay nation's form of government. The Board's answer (where?) to this question was that it was important to the Board that they conduct their government in a way to aid their determination to protect themselves through peaceful means of law, and at the same time preserve their independence from the Commonwealth of Australia (what independence? - it's a publicity stunt). At this stage both emotional and physical fear were very real to the gay people occupying the Coral Sea islands (the islands are uninhabited). An old law was discovered (what law? where was it discovered?) which applied to the Boards situation. This Law held that anyone assisting a defacto Prince to attain his office could not be charged with treason. The Treason Act 1495 went on further to say that anyone hindering a defacto King in the discharge of his Princely duties could be charged with treason. It was decided that such a law fitted their (who?) situation. Therefore, to gain added protection by law than that which they already had under international law, the Board adopted the status of an independent Kingdom rather than a republic which offered them no protection under Australian law (how can they be independent yet require protection under Australian law?). Thus as a Kingdom the onus would be upon any who sought to deter or in any way interfere with their ruler or his subjects.
Petition to Australia
After a June 13 plebiscite (of who? where?) on secession that resulted in a 100% pro-secession vote (by whom?), the gay government (what government?) presented the issue of secession to Australia’s Governor General (proof?) and to the Australian Parliament (ditto), along with copies of the Kingdom’s declaration of independence. To this end, the legislative assembly (of what?) submitted three questions for legal advice (to whom?), which were answered in a 2004 Reference Opinion (by whom? where?):
Under the Australian constitution, can the Gay Assembly, legislature or government of the Gay and Lesbian kingdom effect the secession of the Coral Sea Island Territory from Australia unilaterally?
Does international law give the Gay Assembly, legislature or government of the Coral Sea Island Territory the right to effect the secession of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands from Australia unilaterally?
In the event of conflict between domestic and international law on the issue of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands unilateral secession, which would take precedence in Australia?
With respect to Question one, the legal advice given (by whom? where? when?) stated that the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands may unilaterally secede from Australia and be considered lawful in doing so. The legal advice further concluded that an overseas territory can secede from Australia and no constitution requirements would need to be amended or be negotiated. Implicitly conceding that the Australian Constitution allowed other former overseas Australian territories of Papua New Guinea, the Nauru and the Cocos Keeling Islands the right to self determination with Papua New Guinea and Nauru choosing to become independent states.
With respect to Question two: the legal advice obtained (see previous paragraph) by the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom similarly held that international law does confer a right to unilaterally secede on either the citizens of the Coral Sea Islands (the Coral Sea Islands are uninhabited) or its representative institutions (there aren't any). The legal advice noted that international law, like Australian law, neither permits nor prohibits unilateral secession, and was unpersuaded by the two arguments that what “is not explicitly prohibited is implicitly permitted” and that foreign states have a duty to recognise secessions brought about by the well-established “international law of right of a people to self-determination”.
...and so on and so forth. In other words, all of the above is unredeemable boosterism for a group that only ever existed as a publicity stunt. --Gene_poole 13:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Gene Poole if it is a publicity stunt why then does the Kingdom have a mail service, is visited by gay and lesbian tourists, sells postage stamps and the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands is listed in the Lonely Planet travel guide on Micronations as a great country to visit. --wowfm 22 June 2006.
The only part of your statement above that can be verified is the entry about the "Kingdom" in the Lonely Planet guide - which won't actually be published until September 2006. If you can supply verifiable references confirming your other claims please do so. Printing stamps proves only that an entity of some sort called the Gay & Lesbian Kingdom... exists - not that the ludicrous assertions in the paragraphs above are true. --Gene_poole 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Gene Poole can you prove that the above are not true? just because you dont believe something happened does not give you the right to dictate your views on others, why would Lonely Planet include the Kingdom in a travel guide if its not true. I have not mentioned anything about the paragraphs above but perhaps you should research your subject a little more before you write about them, anyone with half a brain who has visited the Kingdoms web site and goes to the photo page can see tourists, signs, planes ect so its hardly as you put it "ever existed as a publicity stunt" wowfm
It is incumbent on you to prove the truth of your claims. It is not incumbent on me disprove them. This is fundamental to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Aside from that you seem to have completely misinterpreted my comments. I have not said the "kingdom" doesn't exist. I have stated that the mere fact of it's existence does not prove that various other statements about it are either true or verifiable. --Gene_poole 11:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
If you say that the Kingdom does exist, why then have you stated the fact above and I quote " above is unredeemable boosterism for a group that only ever existed as a publicity" If it only ever existed as a publicity stunt as you say it seems a long publicity stunt since its now been going on for over two years!!! and you can go out and visit the GLK and camp there, post a letter and meet the GLK members. Have you ever written to the Kingdom? have you ever contacted the GLK governement and asked them for information rather than ramble on with your own self imporatant educated dribble. --wowfm
Your comments seem rather confused, and I’m not sure I can make much sense of them. I’ve repeatedly stated that in my opinion the “kingdom” exists, but you seem to want to insist I’ve said the opposite. My comment that you’ve quoted above actually says the opposite of what you seem to think it says. The bottom line here – and it’s a pretty simple concept - is that you can’t include unverifiable content in the article because it’s against Wikipedia policy. If you’re unsure what this means, please read the policy.
Stamps
...intends to issue stamps conservatively "with the aim of creating a high and distinctive reputation amongst the philatelic fraternity.
This phrase has been deleted now as a "slight rewrite", "unverifiable", "NPOV rewrite" and "advertising." This sentence conveys information and is a verifiable quote. I have tried to rewrite it to satisfy the objection which varies each time. What can we do here? Gimmetrow 03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether it constitutes advertising or not. It looks more like "content padding" to me - ie it's content that adds nothing useful to the article. Frankly, so what if they plan a conservative stamp issue policy ? --Gene_poole 05:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the meaning one derives from this sentence depends on one's POV and would be OR. It might mean the organisation is going to print stamps a few times like a legitimate government. Or it mean mean the organisation is rationalizing a one-time PR stunt. My interest is mostly in the stamps and their assertion that they have philatelic value, which also relates to the fair use claim for the stamp image itself. (I have some doubts the designs are public domain.) If this is "content padding", it's only one sentence in a short article. Gimmetrow 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It should suffice to embed the currently available stamps as a matter of fact. Whether the group intends to issue new stamps "conservatively" or has plans to establish an expensive hotel on the island of Cato, is little interesting because it is not an accomplished fact, but merely advertising for the future. There is a link to the Kingdom's website, anyone who is interested can look up for more information about commercial activities of the group. --Vanrozenheim 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The link to the stamp page can go if the quote will not then be deleted as "unverifiable." I find it interesting that they claim the stamps have a great reputation and high value, and with the image nearby, the merits of that statement can be evaluated. Gimmetrow 18:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Joke?
Is this article some sort of wiki joke? I mean gay islands? For real..
rf 4/6/08 67.142.130.32 (talk·contribs)
Nope. Not a wiki joke. Gimmetrow 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"Homophobia is nothing less than sexual racism" then "there is a requirement that visitors be gay or lesbian". Apparently heterophobia is less than sexual racism… – Alenshatalk 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
