Misplaced Pages

Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:04, 4 February 2006 editKAJ (talk | contribs)129 edits []← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:27, 19 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,279,100 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 14 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 7 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject United States}}, {{WikiProject Colombia}}, {{WikiProject Overseas France}}, {{WikiProject Micronesia}}, {{WikiProject Fiji}}, {{WikiProject Antarctica}}, {{WikiProject Business}}. Keep 7 different ratings in {{WikiProject Law}}, {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Micronations}}, {{WikiProject Finance & Investment...Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(246 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Calm}}
'''Previous discussions:'''
{{Old AfD multi| date = 6 September 2008 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Dominion of Melchizedek }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C| blp=yes|listas=Melchizedek, Dominion Of|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Colombia|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Overseas France|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Micronesia|MarshallIslands=yes|MarshallIslands-importance=|category=}}
{{WikiProject Fiji|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Antarctica|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=B |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Biography|class=B }}
{{WikiProject Micronations |class=B| importance=}}
{{WikiProject Business|accounting=yes}}
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=B |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Countries|class=B }}
}}


*]
*]
*]


{{Archive box|search=yes |collapsible=yes |], ], ], ]}}
== Accurancy & Balancing question for El C ==


== The Ruse That Roared, Washington Post ==
Suggested addition to the SEC statement:


Much, but not all, of this Washington Post article is reproduced on the page on DoM; that can be treated as reliable. For information only, I include an unreliable source (hosted on the Dominion of Melchizedek's site and which has been altered by them, with the addition of bracketed comments): link to the . ] (]) 08:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
*When brining a lawsuit against a New York lawyer, the Dominion of Melchizedek was described as "non-existent" by the United States ]. . Subsequently, when the SEC settled that case, it wrote that the "Dominion of Melchizedek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments."


== Newspaper articles not currently used ==
Suggested addition to the OCC former employee's statement:


*In an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, ] ], John Shockey, a former special assistant in the office of the U.S. ], stated: "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud, a major fraud, and not a legitimate sovereign entity. Persons associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek have been indicted and convicted of a variety of crimes." The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website is less vocal and only refers to Melchizedek in one of its published warnings, as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "]d" Caribbean Bank of Commerce.


*Also, shouldn't the WP quote be made accurate so that the article doesn't falsely claim that the WP "opined" that CAR would "probably" recognize, when it only wrote that "you get the feeling" that it would recognize. Seems that this inaccuracy is both an insult to the WP and to CAR. EDM suggested the quote should be corrected or totally removed, but Gene_Poole thinks the inaccurate version makes smoother reading, so he wants it to remain inaccurate. What do you think? Sincerely, ] 01:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
------
::Hi, sorry for the delay. I'm afraid I find that addition too detached for our purposes here. Of course, from the vantage point of the SEC's interests, they find it prudent not to call those governments "corrupt," not to acknowledge that the CAR is rather crudely under the domination of French imperialism (with direct presence of and intervention by French troops, clearly the decisive military force in the country), that their leadership is shameless enough to so vulgarly be bought off to procliam nonesensical titles, and so on. The document dosen't even mention the CAR. But I am. Anyway, unlike former officials, it dosen't make sense for them to qualify these governments, and conversely, it dosen't make sense for us to include it as "less vocal" of the DoM. In short, we can't simply add such a ''sanitizing'' excerpt, noted as an aside, ''i.e.'' outside of what otherwise are considered pertinent diplomatic circles, as per recognition. ] 12:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Dear El C, No problem on the delay, but I think you have mixed up the three issues. The first issue is to only balance the SEC's statement currently in the article, with their follow up statement that the SEC made at the conclusion of their case. The second is the US OCC being less vocal than their former employee, and as it stands now only their former employee is quoted in the current article, but not the US OCC's official web site regarding DOM. The third is the fact that the Washington Post article didn't "opine" that CAR would "recognize the state of denial if it had a letterhead" as the current article about DOM now falsely proclaims, but the actual article only said that "you get the feeling" that CAR would recognize the state of denial if it had a letter head. Why is it so hard to have Misplaced Pages quote the Washington Post accurately? And why shouldn't the article be balanced with what the US OCC actually wrote about DOM? And why shouldn't the SEC mention of DOM in their case against that NY lawyer be balanced with their statement at the settlement of that same case? Sincerely, ] 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Hi, thanks for the response. Perhaps it would be best to deal with one issue/proposal at a time, specifically citing what is there versus what you wish to supplant/supplument it with. Because at the moment that isn't entirely clear. Regards, ] 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


== Official website ==
:::::Mr. El C, I hope you don't mind me helping with this subject. I would suggest by starting with making the Washington Post article reference accurate.


Just a heads-up for any other editors who are tempted to add information that's taken directly from, and supported by a cite to, the : it's not a reliable source. If you want to add information, you'll need to find a nice, reliable secondary source, which is most likely to be a news article or something like Quatloos that's been accepted over on ]. Court documents will do, at a push (there's an argument that, if it hasn't been reported elsewhere, it's not weighty enough to merit inclusion, and there are possible BLP aspects when linking to court documents).
The current article has it this way,


Obviously, there's no problem with including the single link to the official website in the Ex Links section. Again though, that link really should be to ''www.melchizedek.com'', even if it's apparent that it's changed. The reason is, we have reliable secondary sources that state that's the right site (Quatloos and Global Pirates: Fraud in the Offshore Insurance Industry) and, with a scam that exists purely on the web, we really do need a reliable source for this. ] (]) 20:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
*An article in the Washington Post reported that DoM was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, in 1993, but opined that that nation would probably "recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."


== Relatively recent activity involving DoM companies ==
The portion in question of the acutal article states:


It's possible that the convicted of insurance fraud in 2010 was related to DoM. Certainly, Cliffview Pilot says so. Not sure if they're reliable, and they don't really make a decent case, so I've not added it to the article.
"You get the feeling that the Central African Republic would
recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."


A detailed summary of DoM c.2008, linked to by , can be found . I've not evaluated it for reliability, but it may have some useful stuff in it. ] (]) 11:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
So I suggest our article should state accurately:


==Meatpuppets==
*An article in the Washington Post reported that DoM was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, in 1993, but commented "you get the feeling" that that nation "would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."


Just a reminder...
The main point is to change "probably" to what the article actual said, "you get the feeling" so please feel free to use different wording outside the quotes. Best, ] 00:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, {{Vandal|Johnski}}, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so. ] ] (])
:There is no further reason to entertain these nonsense proposals designed to imply that "Melchizedek" is something other than a criminal scam. The statement in qestion is 100% accurate as it stands, and there's no reason to re-word it using weasel words. The author of the Washington Post article clearly offers an '''opinion''' on the subject of the "recognition" of Melchizedek" by the Central Afrian Republic - which is what the word "opines" means. No amount of obfscatory babbling by Johnski and his sockpuppet/meatpupet army to the contrary can change that. --] 00:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::Mr. Gene_Poole: Can you please explain how making the Washington Post reference accurate is using weasel words, or how it is designed to imply that DoM is something other than a criminal scam? Best, ] 00:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::Once again the two of you are up to your old scam. Laying the ground work for the '''appearance''' of having consensus and then reverting. As I stated below (which has gone unanswered), this is the reason the case was taken to arbitration. It appears that the arbitration case will lay out some finding of fact against both you and Johnski. The arbitration case has not concluded, so if you guys are playing the old bait and switch game maybe it's time to have to the article protected again. ] 07:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:7|one external link|7 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . You may add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
:::Mr. Davidpdx: This is not an attempt to giving the appearance of consensus, rather to get help from El C to make the Washington Post reference accurate, which you apparently don't want. Gene has the nerve to say that making the Washington Post reference accurate is using weasel words, when his own words sound like weasel words to me, where Gene_Poole wrote on your page, "I feel that the use of the ''Washington Post'' quote is fine as it is. The purpose of the statement is to offer the opinion that the Central African Republic would recognise the state of denial if it has a letterhead. Adding "you get the feeling that..." to the quoted section is unneccesarily verbose, and changes nothing." Now he has the nerve to say there is no difference between "probably" and "you get the feeling" and that exchanging the words is 100% accurate. Hopefully El C has the patience to get to the bottom of this and see the need for accuracy and not just take Gene's word for it. Best, ] 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/fantasy-island-the-strange-tale-of-alleged-fraudster-pearlasia-gamboa/Content?oid=2182093
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/Alert/98-38.txt
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2010/10/08/boy-do-we-know-tzemach-ben-david-netzer-korem/
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dallasobserver.com/1996-05-02/news/scam-without-a-country/full
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/101206-02.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/06/15/SEC_Ties_Gold-Mining_Shares_to_Empty_Shell.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2009/lr21084.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
::::I believe El C has stated his position regarding your complaint about the quote. I'm not sure why you believe he will change his opinion based on the fact you say he will. If your holding your hopes up based on that, I believe you are kidding yourself. ] 11:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
-----
:My first question is where did El C supposedly bring up this question? To my knowledge, he hasn't been very active in editing this article at all the last few months. He removed the NPOV notice on the page, but that's all I'm aware of. Feel free to look at the article history, in the last three months that's the '''only''' edit he's made.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
:In terms of the talk page, it goes back almost 4 months since he's made a contribution on this article. Again, please feel free to check for yourself. If you have a problem with a specific user, why are you not sending that person a message?


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 21:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:While discussing it is fine, please keep in mind there is still an arbitration hearing going on at the moment. ] 11:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


== Bias of Editors ==
::Dear Davidpdx, I did bring up these issues with El C (not that I have a problem with El C) on his talk page. There are enough votes to finalize the arbcom, so why shouldn't these issues be dealt with now, and how do you see the arbcom affecting these unresolved issues? Sincerely, ] 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Bromley86 is a contributor and an editor of this page who continually changes information back to his original edits without due respect for a realistic analysis of the current Status of the Dominion of Melchizedek. This page has been skewed and bias for many years and only purports negative information on the state from over 10 years (ago as of 2016).
:::First, there actually aren't enough votes to close the arbitration hearing or it would have been done already. If you look at the page, it says six arbitrators is needed for a majority. Last I looked they only had four.


There is no new information about the current administration of the Dominion of Melchizedek under Prime Minister David Williams and other Members of the Body-Politic, their positive activities in humanitarian efforts, or the removal of all former members; including the Founder's who turned over all title, claim, and right to the Dominion of Melchizedek.
:::Second, the arbitration '''does''' effect what's happening to this article, because of the edit waring going on. Furthermore, if you look at the possible outcomes of the case (I say possible because it is not yet finalized) they include:


Further, this particular user and editor of the page has shown he is not competent in his understanding of International law, the Law of Nations, or the proceedure of Nation States in the recognition of foreign States. This is evident in the fact that he/she sources "Quatloos", the Security and Exchange Commission and the Comptroller of the United States in their comments about the current status of recognition of the Dominion of Melchizedek. Those departments/entities have no authority to determine the Status of any foreign State. Such powers reside exclusively with the State Department of the United States and similar high offices of other States.
:::'''Finding of Facts'''


Finally, the major source used, Quatloos has dozens of missing or dead links. To use Quatloos as the sole source of relevant, up to date, and fair analysis of a State is bias and arbitrary.
:::*POV war-The edit warring is sustained, and marked by aggressive editing by Johnski and a host of apparent associates.


This is one way the introduction could read... It could be amended, however, the current introduction is not fact, unsupported, and should not stand if this page is going to be reflected fairly and properly.
:::*Association-Johnski, and his numerous puppets, are reasonably believed to be associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek and are capable of using a wide variety of IPs to access Misplaced Pages.


"The Dominion of Melchizedek (DoM), Is a micronation formed in the 1990's and has undergone major transformations as the current Members continue to learn, understand, and apply international law so the State can effectively and peacefully co-exist among the Family of Nations. Former Members of the Society, including the founders have been removed by the current Members of the Body-Politic and although there have been reports of fraud perpetrated by the Dominion of Melchizedek in the 90's and early 2000's, there has been no such reports since 2012 under the current administration of the DoM."
:::'''Proposed Remedies'''


] (]) 16:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
:::*Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. (note: these have been taken directly from the Arbitration Preposed Decision page).


: You are repeatedly adding a section to the lead which is both a promotional whitewash, and unsourced. You clearly have some COI with the subject of this article: your editing history spans several years, with no other edits. Just what is your connection to this group? Are you aware that WP sourcing policy applies equally to editors with "inside knowledge", and the rest of us. ] (]) 16:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
:::Please explain to me why the arbitration outcome wouldn't have an impact on the "unresolved issues" that you continue to push? ] 04:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


:: What aspects of the introduction do you consider "Promotional whitewash" and "Unsourced"? The Micronation was formed in the 90's (recognized that is), The removal of the founder of the Dominion of Melchizedek is sourced on the States Website, if you can find any allegations of fraud or illegalities of the State since 2012, then that particular statement would be proven false I suppose. The Statement about the current Members continuing to learn, understand, and apply international law to peacefully co-exist is based on learning and knowing the mindset of the current Head of State of the Dominion of Melchizedek, Prime Minister David Williams. His information is readily available on-line.
::::My point in bring these (unattributed comments) into play is the fact that Johnski has used the talk page to justify his reverts and claim consensus. This has happened over and over again and is part of the reason behind the arbitration case.


:: As for "Promotional Whitewashing" and "Unsourced" content in the lead, there is no proof which substantiates the current lead on this page. I have attempted to find where this statement is made in the Quatloos article cited. There is nothing of the sort. Two wrongs do not make a right. If you can proof that the statements made by me in the lead are in error, by all means, it should be updated to reflect the facts. Just as the current lead should be updated to reflect the facts. Accusations can go both ways, which is why it is important to stick with facts and reliable sources. ] (]) 16:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
::::Second, my comments are signed. The above comments about the arbitration case were slightly off center as I didn't get them offset to match my comments. Those are now fixed. ] 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


::: Please note that, per ], the lede should introduce and briefly summarize the article. As it currently stands it does that quite well, and there is no need to defend any of the charges within the lede.
:::::Thanks for the clarification/indentation. In light of my explanation above, I remain content with the tag removal. Regards, ] 15:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
::: If there is consensus that we need to defend against some of the charges of fraud, or soften their blow, let's find independent ] on that topic and write a new section about the current administration of the DoM, since 2012. ] 17:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure I understand the issue with this, the passage is clearly quoted. Please clarify. Thanks. Regards, ] 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
== Until this dispute is resolved ==


:::: Please Note, per ], "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read". You state, the introduction does a good job with introducing the facts presented on the page, however, nowhere in the article does it state that 1) the individuals charged where not charged as Members of the Dominion of Melchizedek but rather, All individuals charged with fraud or other such criminal activities were charges as US Citizens (as they should be since those individuals were, in fact, US Citizens because they never properly naturalized into the State per the procedures laid out by the United States or international conventions. 2). The introduction is misleading because nowhere in the article cited does it make the statement which is being made in the introduction. Further, Quatloos is not an authority on which States/Societies are considered recognized or unrecognized. Quatloos is a website, not a government or an agent of the US Government or any government, regardless if they purport to be attorneys. Likewise, Other sources such as the Security and Exchange Commission and the Comptroller of the United States have no authority to determine whether or not a State has recognition or exist. Per the (which the US is signatory to); "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition, the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence" 4). The Dominion of Melchizedek has been recognized by multiple countries, some of which is even cited within this page.
I am placing {{disputed}} on the article page. ] 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


::::″According to the Washington Post, the Central African Republic extended diplomatic recognition to the DoM in 1993, but the Post article went on to remark, "...you get the feeling that the Central African Republic would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead." An article in the Quatloos! the online anti-fraud site noted that: "Melchizedek has apparently obtained some sort of recognition from some smaller states ... all of which are notable for their corruption. Claims that the DoM has received recognition from any major government are pure lies.″
:Let's clarify, what does the dispute being result entail? I'm just curious. ] 11:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
::I have removed it; please do not reinsert it without clear grounds. Thanks. Regards, ] 16:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


:::: The Washington Post was correct in its reporting that the Central African Republic extended Diplomatic Recognition to the DoM, Everything else is an opinion of the editor of the Washington Post and the editors of this page. More importantly and to the point, those comments have no bearing on the political relationship between the two States. Further, the statements credited to Quatloos is also an opinion. The Fact is that the DoM has been recognized in various capacities by various states and yet, the introduction still leads with the statement that the Dominion of Melchizedek is '''"unilaterally declared, internationally unrecognized micronation"''' (which "unrecognized" is spelled incorrectly).
:::Mr. El C: Honestly, you can't see the difference between "probably" and "you get the feeling"? Gene changed what the Washington Post wrote from "you get the feeling" to "probably". It is not a question of quotation marks. It is a question of his changing the meaning of what the Washington Post wrote, trying to make the reference imply what he wants it to say instead of what it actualy states. Gene is claiming that the Washington Post said that the CAR would probably recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead when in fact the Washington Post only said that "you get the feeling" that it would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead. Would it be so hard to throw Johnski and myself a bone and accurately reference the Washington Post article?
::::We can include the full "You get the feeling that the Central African Republic would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead" passage, I have no objections (even if I'm not entirely clear how that really matters as per accuracy, though). ] 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Some of the other reason that I placed the accuracy notice is the following:


:::: As for writing a new section about the current administration, That is preferable. However, this requires the willingness of the editors and monitors of this page to be willing to address the bias and double-minded opinions being perpetrated on the entire page and to update the entire page to reflect a more neutral and accurate history of the Dominion of Melchizedek (a video recorded history of the DoM by the two longest Members of the DoM can be found on its Official Website under the notice section). The fact is, that the Dominion of Melchizedek is recognized and since the current Head of State, David Williams has taken over the State in 2012, there has been no reports of fraud, deception, nefarious activities or the like. This should be addressed in the introduction if a reader is going to get a full picture of the micro-state and its current activities in the international community.
* Membership: I can't find anywhere that they have "membership", unless it means 50 members of the government, but could find that they have "citizens", that for ecclesiastical reasons, they will not number.


:::: As for providing a reliable source, what do you suggest? Are letters from foreign Governments thanking the Head of State of the DoM for their assistance during a health crisis considered an independent and reliable source of information? How about the many websites, interviews, and articles that speak about David Williams and his years of educating individuals in the area of international law and the principle of the Right of Self-Determination? When you are not actively out seeking press, but focused on building a State, where do you find a reliable source? The website of the Dominion of Melchizedek is not considered a reliable source, yet I wonder how many other official government websites are likewise considered unreliable sources! ] (]) 18:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
:*It relates to affiliation, less than 50 is just a rough criteria. Not sure why that's an issue. Feel free to provide otherwise estimations. <sup>]</sup> ] 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


::::: I wouldn't focus too much on the lede. As I mentioned, it is meant to summarize the article, and to do it well. We can't add any content into the lede that does not already exist in the article.
::*Ok, but it gives me a false impression, and probably others too. Membership should either be changed to some other word, or where it says 50 it should say 50 officials. I read somewhere they have estimated 10,000 citizens, but can't find it just running a quick search.] 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


::::: If you feel that there is a side to this that is misunderstood or underrepresented, gather some sources and put together a draft section. No, the government slash website of DoM is not considered a reliable source, but if what you say is true then there should be ] that portray the DoM in a positive light since 2012.
*Date of foundation of 1986 is disputed.


::::: On the other hand, if such sources are unavailable, then it will be impossible to write such a section. In that case the article will likely remain as it is, a fairly accurate summary of the sources that are available. ] 19:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
:*Who disputes it? <sup>]</sup> ] 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


:::::: You say "I wouldn't focus too much on the lede". umm, the lede is the most important part! Why wouldn't I focus on it? Did you actually read my response? The DoM has been recognized. Yet the lead, as well as other information inaccurately reports the opposite. The section under recognition even states the DoM has been recognized not only by the Central African Republic but other smaller states! This makes the lede inaccurate; not to mention double-minded and contrary to the facts presented within the article itself!
::*See below.] 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


:::::: When you say "fairly accurate", in whose opinion? I have been accused of having a POV conflict of interest, yet "fairly accurate" means nothing. Something is either accurate or it is not. With regards to recognition, I have added many links from various documents provided by foreign governments to the Dominion of Melchizedek on Treaties of Peace and Recognition, however, Those links are always taken down and I am told they are not reliable sources simply because those documents are housed on the DoM's website.
*Purported currency: they purport to have "Dominion Dollars". According to CBS and Forbes, their currency was quoted on the Bloomberg.


:::::: The problem, at the end of the day, is simple. The editors of this page and the public at large are highly ignorant of international law, the Law of Nations, and how this Planet actually operates. It is not understood how Nations recognize other nations or who in a government has the authority to take such action, most people have never heard of the right of self-determination or actually exercised said right, and most are completely ignorant of their own history. This page paints the Dominion of Melchizedek in a purely negative light. It does not keep the third party sources of foreign government documents when added. It does not keep in mind that all nations/states/societies all have had checkered past, including the United States. The Founders had to fight a war. They had to borrow money and go into debt. They had to trade and get recognition from the pirates in the beginning because they couldn't get recognition from the more notable states at that time (). Heck, they had to completely reform their Government because the Articles of Confederation was a complete failure. This is just the facts because creating a new society is not an easy thing to do. People make mistakes just like Societies do.
:*CBS and Forbes claimed "their was quoted on the Bloomberg" when? <sup>]</sup> ] 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


:::::: You can find documents from the DoM's website which provide sources of foreign governments recognizing the DoM. You can find Letters from Liberia as late as February of 2015 thanking the DoM for helping during a national crisis. These documents, whether Misplaced Pages wishes to acknowledge them or not, clearly show that 1) the State is recognized as a separate state by other governments, 2) the state is very much real, not a fantasy, nor an online phenomenon, and 3) the lack of news on the DoM and its activities is proof that the state, under its current administration is not involved in any activity which would cause government agents to go after its members or peak the interest of the media. It is well known that negative news is the best form of news and positive news is boring news.
::*You can see that CBS claimed in 2000 that "It has had its currency listed on Bloomberg and the Dominion itself is listed in Tax Havens of the World" here,However, when it occured shouldn't matter because it is only their "purported currency".] 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


:::::: At the end of the day, these dialogues contribute to the public record of the State doing what it can to correct the misinformation and the skewed bias nature of the Misplaced Pages page known as the Dominion of Melchizedek. I am still waiting for proper answers to the questions I have put forth over the past couple of years and still waiting to see who, as an editor on this page, actually have the credentials to discuss international matters with regards to self-determination and the recognition of states/societies.
*Listed as a ''microntion'', but only claims to be an "ecclesiastical sovereignty" and has been recognized as such. Also, Micronation is defined at Misplaced Pages as having no recognition from any world government, so either that has to be changed, or DoM should stop being called a micronation. It doesn't matter our opinion about how they got their recognition, the fact is that they indisputably have been recognized as an ecclesiastical sovereignty by one or more world governments.


:::::: @bradv, How much of the material, sources, and factual truths provided by the various sources which contribute to the contents of this page have you personally gone through and vetted? ] (]) 19:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
:*The article reads: "micronations do not <u>generally</u> have diplomatic relations with recognized nation-states of the world or major international bodies." (emphasis added) Please qualify using reliable sources that this ''only'' is a consideration in diplomatic conventions. <sup>]</sup> ] 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


::::::: It is not Misplaced Pages's job to decide international policy, and it is not the job of individual editors to argue about international policy. It is our job to go through reliable sources, summarize them, and gather the sources together into an encyclopedia.
::*Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Nevertheless, the micronation article doesn't cover "ecclesiastical sovereignties", and seems to be a mis-categorization for DoM.] 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC) and the opening line of the Micronation article clearly states, "This article is about entities that are not recognized by any world governments or major international organizations." ] 07:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


::::::: From the statements you have made here and on your talk page, I'm beginning to think you are ] to help build an encyclopedia. You are here to promote the Dominion of Melchizedek, and convince people that it is a real country.
*It has not been linked to banking ] only the banks it licensed have been accused of being linked to banking fraud, not DoM.


::::::: It is not, and even if we say it is on Misplaced Pages, it still won't be. ] 20:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
:*It licensing the banks ''is'' the link, in this case. This is at least how it's being depicted elsewhere, no? If no, then <sup>]</sup> ] 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


::::::::I can't speak for Bradv, but in my case 100% of the existing cites and can state that they accurately support the points made in the article. I've also had a quick look, for the purposes of this discussion, at DoM's mentions in the online press 2012 onwards:
::*So why not be specific so the reader has a better understanding of the facts?You don't say that Arizona is accused of being linked to the banking frauds of the banks it licensed, do you? Also, I belive the CBS article linked above points out that DOM itself hasn't been linked to the frauds.] 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::*In the context of scams:
::::::::*Tangential:
::::::::So there's no ability to add anything about the current activities of DoM as, at best, it's morphed from an entity notable for being involved in scams to a non-notable entity. That morphing, should it be the case, does not mean the article needs to be deleted, as the historical situation is still notable. ] (]) 20:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


::::::::: Bradv, you mention "it is not the job of Misplaced Pages or the editors to decide international policy" I agree one hundred percent. You nor this site, have that authority or knowledge base to make such determinations (it is evident in your responses). Yet, almost immediately after your statement you follow up by making an assumption on international policy by assuming the State doesn't exist, which is an opinion not substantiated by any reliable and verifiable source. This is a violation of Misplaced Pages's policies and procedures! You don't have the right to voice your opinion. You only have the permission to add verifiable information.
*The DoM was NOT created in ] by ] and his son, ]. According to Context Magazine its foundations go back to the 1950s, and there were apparently other people involved in founding it, such as, Josiah Merriman, and Albert Blaustein.


::::::::: Furthermore, you are making assumptions and presumptions to my motives for engaging in the correction of facts and verifiable information presented on this page. You have proven, based on your off hand comments that you do not have a neutral point of view on this page because you keep interjecting your bias assumptions and opinons. I have maintain one firm position which is that the lede to this page is unverifiable and inaccurate not only because of the source that was cited, but because of the source presented within this article by other editors which state that a "reliable" source; Washington Post, indeed adminted that the DoM has received diplomatic recognition. Regardless of the opinion of the editor of the article sourced about the reasons the Central African Republic or any other state would engage in recognizing the DoM (diplomatically or otherwise), this is a factual event. Two facts are verifiable as cited in my previous response on the Rights and Duties of States..."The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition, the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence". This is international law and is agreed to by all states. Furthermore, Article 6 of the same International treaty states "recognition is unconditional and irrevocable". I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty straight forward and specific to me. Considering the State has received communications from a foreign Government as late as February of 2015, and considering there are numerous documents from other states engaging in Treaties of Peace and Recognition, your comment that the state "still wouldn't exist" or any editors comment that the State is unrecognized is a complete lie! It is something you want to believe but does not fit the reality at hand.
:*This was written in Context Magazine ''when''? Their source, if possible. <sup>]</sup> ] 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


::::::::: You can make whatever statement of assumption you wish about my motives, but it should be clear to any neutral party that reviews this dialogue, I am pointing my responses and my focus of facts presented on this page with third party source material that Your Government and every other Government know, understand, and abide by. I am also pointing out violations of Wikipedias own policies regarding verifiable sources. ].
::*Context Magazine stated in their April-May 2001 article called, Altered States: "At the serious end of the spectrum is the Dominion of Melchizedek. Its modern history goes back to the 1950s when David Pedley, an entrepreneur, was encouraged by his Bible teacher to resurrect a place whose name has origins in citations from the Old Testament. Pedley passed this task on to his son Tzemach "Ben" David, who has been working ceaselessly on the project since the ’70s."] 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
::* On the question of other founders, this is where I found that Blaustein is considered a founder of DoM: and although it isn't claimed so by DoM, this shows that Merriman was to a certain degree involved in founding DoM: . ] 07:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


::::::::: @Bromley86 - This also includes @Bradv; Just because someone writes and article and they are considered third-party from the Subject of the page and Misplaced Pages, does not mean that the Source is accurate in what they present. Bromley86, you cited numerous articles that were posted after 2012, yet all these articles merely mention the name Dominion of Melchizedek! Seriously,
*I can not find any fact to support that "during the ]s the Pedleys were convicted and imprisoned for multiple various land and share-related frauds." Perhaps someone can cite for me, for example, the share-related fraud either or both of them were convicted of in the 1980s.


:::::::::your first Article references a woman who has had no affliation with the DoM prior to 2006. Anything she has done personally, does not automatically tie to the State! Who knows why this particular individual decided to write this article in 2013, 3 years after the event allegedly occured?
:* mentions these. Not sure why citing these in detail is pertinent for our purposes. ] 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


:::::::::Your Second article is a blogger who decided to write a historical peice on other micronations because of an indivdiual trying to claim a track of land for his daughter! (more than likely her source for the DoM was this page). It is a one paragraph, mentioning facts she found interesting!
::*It says mail fraud for the son, not share fraud, and stock-fraud for the father, but doesn't give a date for the stock fraud, so the reference is not accurate. This isn't such a big deal because who really cares what they've been convicted of, as long as it is fraud, but I like accuracy when reading about any person or subject. That is why there is an article for David Pedley, so all of those accurate details can be spelled out. An article for Ben Pedley should be made for the same reason.] 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


:::::::::Your Third article has got to be a joke if you are including this as a reliable source. The only mention of the Dominion of Melchizedek is the fact that this man "Alleged to have ties to the Dominion of Melchizedek". Ok. People alleged things all the time. Doesn't mean they are true! That is why in a court of law, allegations must be verified by facts!
*How can we say that "None of these claims is recognized by any established government" since the treaties they publish on their web site mentioned some of the claims and are purported to be signed by established governments such as Burkina Faso?


:::::::::Your Fourth article again has only a mere mention of the Dominion of Melchizedek in relation to a group attempting to exercise its right of Self-Determination, unfortunately, they are following the path of the DoM early on which is the lack of understanding "naturalization of citizens".
:*Claims should be ''are'' (plural). Who sees the ] as an established govt., even in passing? <sup>]</sup> ] 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


:::::::::Your Fifth article only has this mention "scams (like the Dominion of Melchizedek, which sold fake passports at inflated prices)". Of course, this allegation is address in the history of the DoM put out by the State itself. The man who was arrested for creating fake passports was not only caught creating fake passports for the DoM but multiple nations. He was not a "member" of the DoM nor any other state he was selling passports of! Criminals don't care about things like that! There are thousands of people who sell fake passports of any state to any person dumb enough to pay for them.
::*What does the Congress for Democracy and Progress have to do with correcting this inaccuracy. We are talking about members of the United Nations, so who cares how we view these governments? This doesn't address the point that the statement should be changed to reflect facts, or purported facts.] 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


:::::::::Your Sixth article only states this..." In addition, he is said to have shares of a fictional bank in the "Dominion of Melchizedek" ok. where is that proof? Again, people can and will say anything. Just because something is said, does not make it true.
*Forbes magazine never used the word "ruse," but did use the word, "dubious" in referring to DOM.


:::::::::Your final two articles 7 mentions the DoM in passing and 8 is a link that goes to a subsription page which is a violation of wikipedias external link policy..notabley number 6.
:*How are you able to substantiate this claim? <sup>]</sup> ] 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


:::::::::Bottom line is that I keep hearing about reliable sources, crediable sources. yet you present these articles which are a joke at best. If anything, it shows that people who write about microstates will continue to write about the Dominion of Melchizedek based on its history because they have no other information to go by. By and large, it is due to the information on this page since anytime someone hears about the Dominion of Melchizedek, they will look it up on Misplaced Pages.
::*I found where Forbes calls DoM dubious, here: "The Securities & Exchange Commission just won a consent court order against Las Vegas-based Countryland Wellness Resorts, which, we noted here (June 12), had reported selling $2.7 billion of dubious mining interests to the equally dubious Dominion of Melchizedek." If you believe an article in Forbes used the word, "ruse" then the burden is on you to prove they used it, not me to prove they didn't use it.] 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


:::::::::I see you took the citation down off the lede. That is the first step. however, per the policies on Misplaced Pages and lede to pages, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." As the Lede stands, it is one blanket statement that has no verifiable source. The lede should also "Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.". Since there is no reliable, published source verifying the lede, it stands to reason, it must be changed and updated to reflect an accurate discription of the topic at hand. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::*Now I have cited some good sources, such as Forbes, Context Magazines and CBS. Also, it isn't clear to me if David Korem, which is said to have founded the DoM in 1990 is one of the Pedleys. I'd like to ignore Gene_Poole below, however, I am not a member of any criminal gang, and I'm not sure that DoM is such a gang, because David Pedley is dead, John Gillespie appears to have been kicked out of the DoM long time ago, and their president for several years is a former law enforcement officer with an apparenly clean record. What criminal scams are they running? If they are running any, why haven't they been brougt to justice after at least 15 years of operations. Which brings up the point of the categories, which also need to be more closely examined in light of these facts. Best] 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


::::::::::I wasn't providing them as references in articles, merely pointing out that there's been no mention in news sources of the DoM in a manner which would support the sorts of changes that you would like to make. Thank you for making my point in detail!
Therefore, I am returning the tag until these accuracy disputes are resolved.] 20:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Regarding the Lead, it's fine as it is:
::::::::::*''The Dominion of Melchizedek (DoM), is a unilaterally declared, internationally unrecognised micronation'' - all mentioned in the Body and referenced, with the exception of the actual word "micronation". I'll have a look at making sure that's in somewhere.
::::::::::*''known for facilitating large scale banking fraud in many parts of the world during the 1990s and early 2000s'' - again, covered in the body and reffed, although I see none of our current refs/points relate to the naughties, so I'll remove that part. ] (]) 02:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


== Fraud ==
:Now answered. I'm afraid that much of the onus falls on you, though. And in light of the arbitration case, I am removing the tag until you are able to provide well-referenced citations. We had the tag for so long now, I think we're at the stage where we need ''the objections'' to be presented in a much more well-referenced form, since the material appears to adhere to mainstream diplomatic and scholarly views. If and/or when we do, I will gladly reinsert it myself. Until then, I'm not inclined to have it remain, seemingly indefinitely, sorry. Thanks. Regards, ] 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Just visited DOM's website. A purported "photograph of Melchizedek" looks like an island in Fiji! (Cannot identify which one it is — but I'll try to find out) ] (]) 10:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
::There is no need for any spurious dispute tag on this article, because the only people disputing it are self-interesed cranks - members of a well-known international criminal gang - whose attempted modifications to the article are unsubstantiated, unreferenced, unverified poppycock, and who are attempting to openly, repeatedly, shamelessly pervert the content of the article to suit their own promotional agenda via a campaign of organisaed vandalism, that is shorty to result in them being banned from editing Misplaced Pages. --] 23:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


== Page Protection == == Johnski Redux ==


It appears once again Johnski and his meatpuppets have started to push their propaganda on the DOM article. Please be aware this went through arbitration many years ago and the result was the banning of of Johnski and ALL of his known meatpuppets. This page can be semi-protected by an administrator and new meatpuppets can be banned. ] (]) 13:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess it is once again time for page protection. As I have stated above, the actions of those who continually revert this article are being question in the case before the arbitration committee. It is very clear that those individuals have no respect for the process (the very same process they threaten me with), which is evident in the way they question whether arbitration has any effect on the outcome of this article.(see previous section of the current talk page)
: Diffs? ] (]) 15:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

::Andy, I'm not sure what you mean. ] (]) 13:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
If they choose not to respect the fact that there is an arbitration case against them ('''which is still pending'''}, then one can easily assume that they will violate any outcome that comes from this hearing. It is high time they start respecting the rules and the process.
::* ]

::: Where are these "meatpuppet edits"? Who is "Johnski"? ] (]) 13:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I've contacted both an administrator and a member of the arbitration committee asking for a page protection and/or a temporary injunction. As many of you know, at this time the arbitration committee is in flux due to the elections being held as well as resignations. There needs to be a short term solution to deal with the problem, until such time the arbitrartion commitee can finish with the case. ] 07:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
::::They are the edits being done by unregistered users. Johnski was (is) someone who is directly involved in DOM who along with other people are making a concerted effort to add unsubstantiated claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision ] (]) 01:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

::Mr. Davidpdx: It seems that you don't understand what went on between Mr Gene_Poole, Mr. El C and myself as we finally worked out the issue regarding the Washington Post reference to CAR, and there was no revert war involved. Best, ] 17:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I do see what happened, however by no means do I believe this is the end of it. There is nothing that leads me to believe that you or Johnski won't go back to reverting the article chronically as you have done in the past. While I am glad the minor issue was resolved, I don't believe it's the end of nitpicking of this article by you two. ] 19:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

== US OCC balancing act ==

Dear El C, here I've tried to make clearer my request for your help in resolving the US OCC issue:

The article currenly only states:

*In an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, ] ], John Shockey, a former special assistant in the office of the U.S. ], stated: "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud, a major fraud, and not a legitimate sovereign entity. Persons associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek have been indicted and convicted of a variety of crimes."

However, it seems significant to me that there is an actual reference to DOM on the US OCC's official web site, and to give balance to the article and something more official from the US OCC I'm requesting that you consider starting with or following that former employee's statement with something like following:

*The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website is less vocal and only refers to Melchizedek in one of its published warnings, as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "]d" Caribbean Bank of Commerce.

If it helps, this is the actual text from the US OCC's web site found at:http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/Alert/98-38.txt:
*"Information has been received that the subject entity holding a bank license issued by the Dominion of Melchizedek, a non-recognized sovereignty, has an unauthorized address in the United States. This entity, subject to Alert 98-14, dated April 21, 1998, subsequently had its Antigua license reinstated. However, the government of Antigua and Barbuda, through its supervisor of banks, has recently given notice that the subject entity's license will again be revoked.:

El C, As you can see, the US OCC is much less vocal than their former employee, and as it stands now, only their former employee is quoted in the current article, but not the US OCC's official web site regarding DOM. Why withhold this official reference? I have no problem with rewording the way it is introduced. Can you see my point for the opportunity to bring more balance and more substance to the article? If you don't like the words, "less vocal", please suggest something else, or ask me to. Sincerely, ] 06:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

::Another insidious Johnski attempt at trying to water down highly negative reportage about Melchizedek and calling it a "consensus" discussion. Yawn. --] 00:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

==Refuting nonsense claims==
I have added a further quote from John Stockey's address to this article, as evidence of the direct link between Melchizedek, Pedley and the conduct of fraudulent banking actvities. Any suggestion that Melchizedek is somehow not linked to the frauds conducted through Melchizedek-licesed banks is arrant rubbish - yet another instance of Johnski trying (and failing) to pull the wool over our collective eyes. --] 04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:I hope every one likes these changes and additions:

:*The Dominion of Melchizedek website claims that it is a recognized sovereign entity. However, mainstream media outlets, including '']'' magazine and '']'', have characterized it as dubious, and it has been described as a "non-existent country" by the United States ].

:In the above, used the most recent link that adds the word "country" to "non-existent" which is accurate, since DOM isn't a country. and changed ruse to dubious as that has been proven but removed the quotation marks since both didn't use either word, but they both characterized it as dubious.

:*The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website seems to reinforce Stockey's statements by referring to Melchizedek in one of its published warnings, as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "]d" the failed Caribbean Bank of Commerce.

:*] in an April 2000 ] 60 Minutes II expose reported that "the State Department called the Dominion a fraud and compared David Korem (whom reputedly founded the DoM in 1990) to P.T. Barnum". Simon also said that, "while Dominion officials have gotten in trouble with the law for Melchizedek-related frauds, Korem has not." Simon also concluding that DoM is a scam, called "The Dominion of Melchizedek an unusual country" since "no one lives there, and it doesn't appear on any maps", claiming, "it is home to hundreds of banks and other financial institutions."

:Comments? Sincerely, ] 07:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

::Dear Davidpdx, I finally added something that I was sure you would like, and El C and Gene seemed to have no problem with it, so please explain what the problem is with this? Sincerely, ] 04:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I don't see where either of them said that. It proves you have a creative imagination. ] 07:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

== Pending final arbcom ruling ==

Based on the proposed arbcom decision, I am going to implement this unless some authority tells me not to:
:Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski, or any other editor I believe to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

::Tom thanks, right now the lack of arbitrators to finalize the decision is the only thing holding things up. Hopefully, semi-protection will be enough to help the problem. Honestly I have my doubts, but we'll see what happens. ] 16:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick update on the arbitration case, two new arbitrators voted and there now might be enough votes to close the case finally. We need to keep an eye on this and make sure whatever solution that passes is fully implemented.

I'm pushing for a little bit tougher outcome, but realistically it's probably not going to happen. If you have time, please make some comments at ]. Hopefully, semi-protection will be enough. ] 12:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
This request for arbitration is closed. ] and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, {{Vandal|Johnski}}, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, --] ] 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:The outcome now being finalized, needs to be enforced if Johnski gets out of line again. I urge any editor who is aware of aggressive editing or POV pushing by Johnski or his associates make sure to report him to an administrator before it gets out of hand. ] 05:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::Mr. Davidpdx: Congratulations on your victory over Johnshi. It seems that you have silenced him. Are we happy with the article the way it is or do you see room for improvement? There are still unresolved issues that I have raised. Now that this is closed can we deal with them, or should we just ignore same? Mr. El C seems too busy with little interest in the subject. Perhaps you could invite EMD or EDM was it? to try again as he seemed willing if you or others would invite him back to the task. Best, ] 07:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:::First of all, no congradulations are in order. We did what was necessary to protect the article from becoming a piece of propaganda. The reason I say, "we" is because it was more then just myself that had a problem with the edits. As I have pointed out numerous times, nine editors filed the Rfa and gave statements in support of the case.

:::Second, the Rfa applies to you as well. I want to point out the exact wording of the Rfa:

:::"'''"If necessary, {{Vandal|Johnski}}, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator."'''

:::The burden of proof has already been met in terms of other editors being meatpuppets. This should pretty much answer the question you asked above. ] 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Mr. Davidpdx: You said what you wanted to say, but I don't see how it answered my questions, however, it seems fruitless to carry on this conversation.
I'm glad to see that a new editor has gotten involved, and that he got past you, a good defender of this article. Best, ] 07:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think you probably better go back and look at the edits that you are claiming are in your favor. You and Johnski automatically assume any new editor will agree with you.

:::::The fact that the Melchizedek Bible article and merging into this one is more then welcomed by me. I also removed the wikilink to Mark Logan Pedley, since that was a redirect back to this article.

:::::Yes, you have made one correct assumption the conversation with me is fruitless. The outcome of the arbitration case is the answer to your question. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it for you. ] 09:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me just state for the record, in reference to the bold quote from the Arbcom ruling above, that I am an administrator and that I believe KAJ to be a sockpuppet of Johnski, and I believe that it is indisputable that KAJ is a meatpuppet of Johnski.

However, I'd be likely to seek input from other administrators in taking any action. However, I don't know a single administrator who has looked into this who has had more patience than me. In fact, some people I asked wondered why I didn't just block 'em all and move on.

I haven't looked at the "new editor" KAJ refers to above, but it'll probably be evident that it's another sockpuppet. Timing is extraordarily, if not comically, suspicious, given Johnski's indefinite block and the arbcom ruling. I refer everyone again to ], which says (and I can now quote it practically from memory) "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Misplaced Pages community." ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 19:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:I agree that KAJ is a sockpuppet of Johnski, so if you need concurrance from another admin, there it is. I don't think ] (] • ]) is a puppet. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::No, having looked, Kingboyk is clearly not a puppet. It was just a case of KAJohnski looking through Dominion of Melchizedek glasses and seeing support where there was the exact opposite. (Just like when he looks at government quotes.) ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 20:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not a puppet and I'm not even especially interested in micronationism. I'm an impartial editor with no strong POV on the subject. (How I ended up here: I was reading about pirate radio in the UK which took me to ]. I then discovered that the Sealand related articles were in a right mess, with the same info scattered and duplicated across multiple articles. I cleaned up a few other articles I found along the way, including this one. I don't believe I've introduced any POV and I believe that every article I've touched has been improved. Indeed, nothing has been reverted so far.) --] 20:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::Sirs: It is funny to see you all think that I was claiming that Kingboyk was pro DoM, whereas, I was only surprised that Davidpdx let him through his defences. Whether or not I am anyones puppet (I'm not) it would be nice to see the issues that I have rasied be addressed by an impartial editor. Best, ] 23:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Thank you. --] 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Mr. Kingboyk: You would be kind to look at the issues I've raised, but be careful, if you agree with anything I've suggested, you might also be attacked. Thank you and good luck. Best ] 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:27, 19 February 2024

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconUnited States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconColombia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Colombia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colombia-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ColombiaWikipedia:WikiProject ColombiaTemplate:WikiProject ColombiaColombia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOverseas France
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Overseas France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Overseas France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Overseas FranceWikipedia:WikiProject Overseas FranceTemplate:WikiProject Overseas FranceOverseas France
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMicronesia: Marshall Islands
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronesia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MicronesiaTemplate:WikiProject MicronesiaMicronesia
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Marshall Islands.
WikiProject iconFiji Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Fiji, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fiji on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FijiWikipedia:WikiProject FijiTemplate:WikiProject FijiFiji
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAntarctica
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLaw B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
BThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
BThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
WikiProject iconMicronations B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronationsWikipedia:WikiProject MicronationsTemplate:WikiProject MicronationsMicronations
BThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBusiness: Accounting
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Accounting task force.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
BThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
BThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
BThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
BThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:



Archives

1, 2, 3, 4


The Ruse That Roared, Washington Post

Much, but not all, of this Washington Post article is reproduced on the Quatloos page on DoM; that can be treated as reliable. For information only, I include an unreliable source (hosted on the Dominion of Melchizedek's site and which has been altered by them, with the addition of bracketed comments): link to the waybacked copy. Bromley86 (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper articles not currently used

South China Post

"Fantasy Island", CBS

Bromley86 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Official website

Just a heads-up for any other editors who are tempted to add information that's taken directly from, and supported by a cite to, the official website: it's not a reliable source. If you want to add information, you'll need to find a nice, reliable secondary source, which is most likely to be a news article or something like Quatloos that's been accepted over on WP:RSN. Court documents will do, at a push (there's an argument that, if it hasn't been reported elsewhere, it's not weighty enough to merit inclusion, and there are possible BLP aspects when linking to court documents).

Obviously, there's no problem with including the single link to the official website in the Ex Links section. Again though, that link really should be to www.melchizedek.com, even if it's apparent that it's changed. The reason is, we have reliable secondary sources that state that's the right site (Quatloos and Global Pirates: Fraud in the Offshore Insurance Industry) and, with a scam that exists purely on the web, we really do need a reliable source for this. Bromley86 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Relatively recent activity involving DoM companies

It's possible that the Ronald Allen convicted of insurance fraud in 2010 was related to DoM. Certainly, Cliffview Pilot says so. Not sure if they're reliable, and they don't really make a decent case, so I've not added it to the article.

A detailed summary of DoM c.2008, linked to by someone heavily involved in Quatloos, can be found here. I've not evaluated it for reliability, but it may have some useful stuff in it. Bromley86 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

Just a reminder...

Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision Davidpdx (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Dominion of Melchizedek. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 21:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Bias of Editors

Bromley86 is a contributor and an editor of this page who continually changes information back to his original edits without due respect for a realistic analysis of the current Status of the Dominion of Melchizedek. This page has been skewed and bias for many years and only purports negative information on the state from over 10 years (ago as of 2016).

There is no new information about the current administration of the Dominion of Melchizedek under Prime Minister David Williams and other Members of the Body-Politic, their positive activities in humanitarian efforts, or the removal of all former members; including the Founder's who turned over all title, claim, and right to the Dominion of Melchizedek.

Further, this particular user and editor of the page has shown he is not competent in his understanding of International law, the Law of Nations, or the proceedure of Nation States in the recognition of foreign States. This is evident in the fact that he/she sources "Quatloos", the Security and Exchange Commission and the Comptroller of the United States in their comments about the current status of recognition of the Dominion of Melchizedek. Those departments/entities have no authority to determine the Status of any foreign State. Such powers reside exclusively with the State Department of the United States and similar high offices of other States.

Finally, the major source used, Quatloos has dozens of missing or dead links. To use Quatloos as the sole source of relevant, up to date, and fair analysis of a State is bias and arbitrary.

This is one way the introduction could read... It could be amended, however, the current introduction is not fact, unsupported, and should not stand if this page is going to be reflected fairly and properly.

"The Dominion of Melchizedek (DoM), Is a micronation formed in the 1990's and has undergone major transformations as the current Members continue to learn, understand, and apply international law so the State can effectively and peacefully co-exist among the Family of Nations. Former Members of the Society, including the founders have been removed by the current Members of the Body-Politic and although there have been reports of fraud perpetrated by the Dominion of Melchizedek in the 90's and early 2000's, there has been no such reports since 2012 under the current administration of the DoM."

Bssmith117 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You are repeatedly adding a section to the lead which is both a promotional whitewash, and unsourced. You clearly have some COI with the subject of this article: your editing history spans several years, with no other edits. Just what is your connection to this group? Are you aware that WP sourcing policy applies equally to editors with "inside knowledge", and the rest of us. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
What aspects of the introduction do you consider "Promotional whitewash" and "Unsourced"? The Micronation was formed in the 90's (recognized that is), The removal of the founder of the Dominion of Melchizedek is sourced on the States Website, if you can find any allegations of fraud or illegalities of the State since 2012, then that particular statement would be proven false I suppose. The Statement about the current Members continuing to learn, understand, and apply international law to peacefully co-exist is based on learning and knowing the mindset of the current Head of State of the Dominion of Melchizedek, Prime Minister David Williams. His information is readily available on-line.
As for "Promotional Whitewashing" and "Unsourced" content in the lead, there is no proof which substantiates the current lead on this page. I have attempted to find where this statement is made in the Quatloos article cited. There is nothing of the sort. Two wrongs do not make a right. If you can proof that the statements made by me in the lead are in error, by all means, it should be updated to reflect the facts. Just as the current lead should be updated to reflect the facts. Accusations can go both ways, which is why it is important to stick with facts and reliable sources. Bssmith117 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Please note that, per the manual of style, the lede should introduce and briefly summarize the article. As it currently stands it does that quite well, and there is no need to defend any of the charges within the lede.
If there is consensus that we need to defend against some of the charges of fraud, or soften their blow, let's find independent reliable sources on that topic and write a new section about the current administration of the DoM, since 2012. Bradv 17:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Please Note, per The manual of style, "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read". You state, the introduction does a good job with introducing the facts presented on the page, however, nowhere in the article does it state that 1) the individuals charged where not charged as Members of the Dominion of Melchizedek but rather, All individuals charged with fraud or other such criminal activities were charges as US Citizens (as they should be since those individuals were, in fact, US Citizens because they never properly naturalized into the State per the procedures laid out by the United States or international conventions. 2). The introduction is misleading because nowhere in the article cited does it make the statement which is being made in the introduction. Further, Quatloos is not an authority on which States/Societies are considered recognized or unrecognized. Quatloos is a website, not a government or an agent of the US Government or any government, regardless if they purport to be attorneys. Likewise, Other sources such as the Security and Exchange Commission and the Comptroller of the United States have no authority to determine whether or not a State has recognition or exist. Per the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (Article 3) (which the US is signatory to); "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition, the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence" 4). The Dominion of Melchizedek has been recognized by multiple countries, some of which is even cited within this page.
″According to the Washington Post, the Central African Republic extended diplomatic recognition to the DoM in 1993, but the Post article went on to remark, "...you get the feeling that the Central African Republic would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead." An article in the Quatloos! the online anti-fraud site noted that: "Melchizedek has apparently obtained some sort of recognition from some smaller states ... all of which are notable for their corruption. Claims that the DoM has received recognition from any major government are pure lies.″
The Washington Post was correct in its reporting that the Central African Republic extended Diplomatic Recognition to the DoM, Everything else is an opinion of the editor of the Washington Post and the editors of this page. More importantly and to the point, those comments have no bearing on the political relationship between the two States. Further, the statements credited to Quatloos is also an opinion. The Fact is that the DoM has been recognized in various capacities by various states and yet, the introduction still leads with the statement that the Dominion of Melchizedek is "unilaterally declared, internationally unrecognized micronation" (which "unrecognized" is spelled incorrectly).
As for writing a new section about the current administration, That is preferable. However, this requires the willingness of the editors and monitors of this page to be willing to address the bias and double-minded opinions being perpetrated on the entire page and to update the entire page to reflect a more neutral and accurate history of the Dominion of Melchizedek (a video recorded history of the DoM by the two longest Members of the DoM can be found on its Official Website under the notice section). The fact is, that the Dominion of Melchizedek is recognized and since the current Head of State, David Williams has taken over the State in 2012, there has been no reports of fraud, deception, nefarious activities or the like. This should be addressed in the introduction if a reader is going to get a full picture of the micro-state and its current activities in the international community.
As for providing a reliable source, what do you suggest? Are letters from foreign Governments thanking the Head of State of the DoM for their assistance during a health crisis considered an independent and reliable source of information? How about the many websites, interviews, and articles that speak about David Williams and his years of educating individuals in the area of international law and the principle of the Right of Self-Determination? When you are not actively out seeking press, but focused on building a State, where do you find a reliable source? The website of the Dominion of Melchizedek is not considered a reliable source, yet I wonder how many other official government websites are likewise considered unreliable sources! Bssmith117 (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't focus too much on the lede. As I mentioned, it is meant to summarize the article, and to do it well. We can't add any content into the lede that does not already exist in the article.
If you feel that there is a side to this that is misunderstood or underrepresented, gather some sources and put together a draft section. No, the government slash website of DoM is not considered a reliable source, but if what you say is true then there should be newspapers or books that portray the DoM in a positive light since 2012.
On the other hand, if such sources are unavailable, then it will be impossible to write such a section. In that case the article will likely remain as it is, a fairly accurate summary of the sources that are available. Bradv 19:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
You say "I wouldn't focus too much on the lede". umm, the lede is the most important part! Why wouldn't I focus on it? Did you actually read my response? The DoM has been recognized. Yet the lead, as well as other information inaccurately reports the opposite. The section under recognition even states the DoM has been recognized not only by the Central African Republic but other smaller states! This makes the lede inaccurate; not to mention double-minded and contrary to the facts presented within the article itself!
When you say "fairly accurate", in whose opinion? I have been accused of having a POV conflict of interest, yet "fairly accurate" means nothing. Something is either accurate or it is not. With regards to recognition, I have added many links from various documents provided by foreign governments to the Dominion of Melchizedek on Treaties of Peace and Recognition, however, Those links are always taken down and I am told they are not reliable sources simply because those documents are housed on the DoM's website.
The problem, at the end of the day, is simple. The editors of this page and the public at large are highly ignorant of international law, the Law of Nations, and how this Planet actually operates. It is not understood how Nations recognize other nations or who in a government has the authority to take such action, most people have never heard of the right of self-determination or actually exercised said right, and most are completely ignorant of their own history. This page paints the Dominion of Melchizedek in a purely negative light. It does not keep the third party sources of foreign government documents when added. It does not keep in mind that all nations/states/societies all have had checkered past, including the United States. The Founders had to fight a war. They had to borrow money and go into debt. They had to trade and get recognition from the pirates in the beginning because they couldn't get recognition from the more notable states at that time (barbary treaties). Heck, they had to completely reform their Government because the Articles of Confederation was a complete failure. This is just the facts because creating a new society is not an easy thing to do. People make mistakes just like Societies do.
You can find documents from the DoM's website which provide sources of foreign governments recognizing the DoM. You can find Letters from Liberia as late as February of 2015 thanking the DoM for helping during a national crisis. These documents, whether Misplaced Pages wishes to acknowledge them or not, clearly show that 1) the State is recognized as a separate state by other governments, 2) the state is very much real, not a fantasy, nor an online phenomenon, and 3) the lack of news on the DoM and its activities is proof that the state, under its current administration is not involved in any activity which would cause government agents to go after its members or peak the interest of the media. It is well known that negative news is the best form of news and positive news is boring news.
At the end of the day, these dialogues contribute to the public record of the State doing what it can to correct the misinformation and the skewed bias nature of the Misplaced Pages page known as the Dominion of Melchizedek. I am still waiting for proper answers to the questions I have put forth over the past couple of years and still waiting to see who, as an editor on this page, actually have the credentials to discuss international matters with regards to self-determination and the recognition of states/societies.
@bradv, How much of the material, sources, and factual truths provided by the various sources which contribute to the contents of this page have you personally gone through and vetted? Bssmith117 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
It is not Misplaced Pages's job to decide international policy, and it is not the job of individual editors to argue about international policy. It is our job to go through reliable sources, summarize them, and gather the sources together into an encyclopedia.
From the statements you have made here and on your talk page, I'm beginning to think you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. You are here to promote the Dominion of Melchizedek, and convince people that it is a real country.
It is not, and even if we say it is on Misplaced Pages, it still won't be. Bradv 20:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for Bradv, but in my case 100% of the existing cites and can state that they accurately support the points made in the article. I've also had a quick look, for the purposes of this discussion, at DoM's mentions in the online press 2012 onwards:
  • In the context of scams:
  • Tangential:
So there's no ability to add anything about the current activities of DoM as, at best, it's morphed from an entity notable for being involved in scams to a non-notable entity. That morphing, should it be the case, does not mean the article needs to be deleted, as the historical situation is still notable. Bromley86 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Bradv, you mention "it is not the job of Misplaced Pages or the editors to decide international policy" I agree one hundred percent. You nor this site, have that authority or knowledge base to make such determinations (it is evident in your responses). Yet, almost immediately after your statement you follow up by making an assumption on international policy by assuming the State doesn't exist, which is an opinion not substantiated by any reliable and verifiable source. This is a violation of Misplaced Pages's policies and procedures! You don't have the right to voice your opinion. You only have the permission to add verifiable information.
Furthermore, you are making assumptions and presumptions to my motives for engaging in the correction of facts and verifiable information presented on this page. You have proven, based on your off hand comments that you do not have a neutral point of view on this page because you keep interjecting your bias assumptions and opinons. I have maintain one firm position which is that the lede to this page is unverifiable and inaccurate not only because of the source that was cited, but because of the source presented within this article by other editors which state that a "reliable" source; Washington Post, indeed adminted that the DoM has received diplomatic recognition. Regardless of the opinion of the editor of the article sourced about the reasons the Central African Republic or any other state would engage in recognizing the DoM (diplomatically or otherwise), this is a factual event. Two facts are verifiable as cited in my previous response on the Rights and Duties of States..."The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition, the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence". This is international law and is agreed to by all states. Furthermore, Article 6 of the same International treaty states "recognition is unconditional and irrevocable". I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty straight forward and specific to me. Considering the State has received communications from a foreign Government as late as February of 2015, and considering there are numerous documents from other states engaging in Treaties of Peace and Recognition, your comment that the state "still wouldn't exist" or any editors comment that the State is unrecognized is a complete lie! It is something you want to believe but does not fit the reality at hand.
You can make whatever statement of assumption you wish about my motives, but it should be clear to any neutral party that reviews this dialogue, I am pointing my responses and my focus of facts presented on this page with third party source material that Your Government and every other Government know, understand, and abide by. I am also pointing out violations of Wikipedias own policies regarding verifiable sources. "All material in Misplaced Pages mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.".
@Bromley86 - This also includes @Bradv; Just because someone writes and article and they are considered third-party from the Subject of the page and Misplaced Pages, does not mean that the Source is accurate in what they present. Bromley86, you cited numerous articles that were posted after 2012, yet all these articles merely mention the name Dominion of Melchizedek! Seriously,
your first Article references a woman who has had no affliation with the DoM prior to 2006. Anything she has done personally, does not automatically tie to the State! Who knows why this particular individual decided to write this article in 2013, 3 years after the event allegedly occured?
Your Second article is a blogger who decided to write a historical peice on other micronations because of an indivdiual trying to claim a track of land for his daughter! (more than likely her source for the DoM was this page). It is a one paragraph, mentioning facts she found interesting!
Your Third article has got to be a joke if you are including this as a reliable source. The only mention of the Dominion of Melchizedek is the fact that this man "Alleged to have ties to the Dominion of Melchizedek". Ok. People alleged things all the time. Doesn't mean they are true! That is why in a court of law, allegations must be verified by facts!
Your Fourth article again has only a mere mention of the Dominion of Melchizedek in relation to a group attempting to exercise its right of Self-Determination, unfortunately, they are following the path of the DoM early on which is the lack of understanding "naturalization of citizens".
Your Fifth article only has this mention "scams (like the Dominion of Melchizedek, which sold fake passports at inflated prices)". Of course, this allegation is address in the history of the DoM put out by the State itself. The man who was arrested for creating fake passports was not only caught creating fake passports for the DoM but multiple nations. He was not a "member" of the DoM nor any other state he was selling passports of! Criminals don't care about things like that! There are thousands of people who sell fake passports of any state to any person dumb enough to pay for them.
Your Sixth article only states this..." In addition, he is said to have shares of a fictional bank in the "Dominion of Melchizedek" ok. where is that proof? Again, people can and will say anything. Just because something is said, does not make it true.
Your final two articles 7 mentions the DoM in passing and 8 is a link that goes to a subsription page which is a violation of wikipedias external link policy..notabley number 6.
Bottom line is that I keep hearing about reliable sources, crediable sources. yet you present these articles which are a joke at best. If anything, it shows that people who write about microstates will continue to write about the Dominion of Melchizedek based on its history because they have no other information to go by. By and large, it is due to the information on this page since anytime someone hears about the Dominion of Melchizedek, they will look it up on Misplaced Pages.
I see you took the citation down off the lede. That is the first step. however, per the policies on Misplaced Pages and lede to pages, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." As the Lede stands, it is one blanket statement that has no verifiable source. The lede should also "Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.". Since there is no reliable, published source verifying the lede, it stands to reason, it must be changed and updated to reflect an accurate discription of the topic at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bssmith117 (talkcontribs) 22:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't providing them as references in articles, merely pointing out that there's been no mention in news sources of the DoM in a manner which would support the sorts of changes that you would like to make. Thank you for making my point in detail!
Regarding the Lead, it's fine as it is:
  • The Dominion of Melchizedek (DoM), is a unilaterally declared, internationally unrecognised micronation - all mentioned in the Body and referenced, with the exception of the actual word "micronation". I'll have a look at making sure that's in somewhere.
  • known for facilitating large scale banking fraud in many parts of the world during the 1990s and early 2000s - again, covered in the body and reffed, although I see none of our current refs/points relate to the naughties, so I'll remove that part. Bromley86 (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Fraud

Just visited DOM's website. A purported "photograph of Melchizedek" looks like an island in Fiji! (Cannot identify which one it is — but I'll try to find out) David Cannon (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Johnski Redux

It appears once again Johnski and his meatpuppets have started to push their propaganda on the DOM article. Please be aware this went through arbitration many years ago and the result was the banning of of Johnski and ALL of his known meatpuppets. This page can be semi-protected by an administrator and new meatpuppets can be banned. Davidpdx (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Diffs? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Andy, I'm not sure what you mean. Davidpdx (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Where are these "meatpuppet edits"? Who is "Johnski"? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
They are the edits being done by unregistered users. Johnski was (is) someone who is directly involved in DOM who along with other people are making a concerted effort to add unsubstantiated claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision Davidpdx (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Categories: