Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:09, 25 September 2005

Link

Remove quotes off of official site. DOM may be a fictitious scam, but the website is really the official site of said fictitious scam.

Roadrunner 19:25, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Scam

If a scam is ficticious it doesn't exist, so why bother mentioning it at all. The fact is that DOM exists as an ecclesiastical sovereignty, and UN member states have recognized this existence. Why ignore this fact? Just because there have been scams associated with DoM, that doesn't make DoM a scam itself. In fact, there have been many scams associated with the USA, so it must also be a scam, correct?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.49.20 (talk • contribs) on 00:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Lock?

Should we maybe get some sort of lock on this page, since it's so frequently vandalized in such an extreme manner? Someone might see the wiki-entry in vandalized form and be convinced by the scam. Citizen Premier 15:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Reported the vandalism on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress. MakeRocketGoNow 22:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about this topic and have no opinion beyond my concern for the repeated vandalism by the user(s) at 67.124.49.20 and 68.121.47.161. This person not only added content to a quotation by the government of the Marshall Islands, but they repeatedly invalidate the external links by changing "https://" to "http://" and ".htm" to ".html". I don't think there is a need to lock the page if these IPs are blocked. They have been reported on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress multiple times. -- Reinyday, 6 August 2005

Evidence

If you have evidence that the Dominion of Melchizedek is real, then please give it here. The country's own web site does not count, since it could easily be faked. An example of a valid source would be a reputable news service. Meanwhile do not remove other people's valid and referenced contrbutions. Doing so is considered vandalism. DJ Clayworth 18:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

There is plently of evidence to show bias on the part of the person that has repeatedly posted a one sided slant about DoM, a small example is the complaint linked from the article to the SEC web site, that refers to DoM similarily as the unenlightened press does, however, a better link is the outcome of the litigation at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr17054.htm wherein after the SEC became more enlightened, described DoM like this, "The Dominion of Melchizidek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments."

Yesterday there was a quote from the Washington Post that was errased but clearly stated that DoM has official recognition from the Central African Republic (which is a UN member nation), but neither you nor your allies want to mention that fact, nor the quote from the Washington Post that questions who's to say that DoM is phony since it has all of those things that make up a nation state.

The link to the OCC web site was brought to his attention by me, but he refuses to see the fact that this is the OCC's only official reference to DoM which is as a "sovereignty" although "non-recognized" by the US government.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.49.20 (talk • contribs) on 00:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think what clearly defines a micronation would be a populace that swears they are part of the nation. Apparently there are at lease "10,000 citizens and government officials of the Dominion of Melchizedek" Is there, say, U.N. documentation of this citizenry? Or do the Marshall Islands record loosing 10,000 citizens to a new country? Citizen Premier 05:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Narrow Minded

Why are those who post here about DoM so narrow minded?

Why only quote the negative stuff and not anything positive, other than a link to DoM's official site?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.49.20 (talk • contribs) on 00:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Washington Post

Quoting from the Washington Post article about Melchisedek:

"Melchizidek has leaders, laws, religion, a flag, a disputed homeland and an unreasonable territorial claim -- the textbook definition of your basic nation-state. Who's to say it's phony?"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.47.161 (talk • contribs) on 18:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Ruse That Roared is really quite quotable and is one of James Lileks more entertaining pieces.

"It's a con artists' operation through and through," declares John Shockey,

head of the fraud unit in the office of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency. "It's a phony bank, a phony country, a phony dominion -- the whole

thing's a phony."

Bollar 20:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Other quotes from The Washington Post, November 05, 1995, Sunday, Final Edition SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg. C01 LENGTH: 2914 words

BYLINE: Richard Leiby; James Lileks

"the Dominion of Melchizedek -- a mysterious island nation whose leadership consists of such colorfully named personages as Branch Vinedresser (the minister plenipotentiary) and G.M.R. Wijbers (minister of European affairs).

Though it lists diplomatic offices in Washington, Rome and Jerusalem, the Dominion of Melchizedek can't be found on any map. Its only apparent land holding is an uncharted, Gilliganesque isle, 14 miles square, in the conveniently remote South Pacific --which it supposedly purchased for $ 5 million last year.

Melchizedek may be merely a ruse, but getting to the truth requires a walk down a bizarre labyrinth that includes a home-brew religion.... Based more on tax laws than territory, Melchizedek may be the ultimate post-modern state.

Melchizedek calls itself "an ecclesiastical and constitutional sovereignty based on the principles of the Melchizedek Bible" (in the Old Testament, Melchizedek is the "king of righteousness" who blessed Abraham).

Obviously, Melchizedek craves legitimacy. But so far, only one government has given it any diplomatic recognition: The Central African Republic.

We can be sure of this much. The Dominion of Melchizedek is not a gag.

Richard Leiby is a Washington Post editor and reporter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.47.20 (talk • contribs) on 03:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

• Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek (Also Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll, Rotuma, Antarctica, Microstate, Dominion, Micronation) - POV over the validity of Dominion of Melchizedek's sovereignty, and claims over numerous small islands in the Pacific plus Antarctica.

This needs to be put in perspective:

• The "Dominion of Melchizedek" has been identified by multiple international authorities as, first and foremost, a financial scam, created by convicted criminals.
• There are no verifiable sources that support DOM's position over the Pacific islands, atolls and reefs it claims, and no evidence that any member of DOM has even visited most of them Rotuma being the only exception I'm aware of.
• DOM's claim over a large portion of Antarctica is preposterous, and has no foundation in law. Again, there is no evidence that any member of DOM has ever been within 1000 kilometres of Antarctica, so even setting aside the legal question, DOM has made no attempt to enforce its own claim, rendering it entirely baseless.
• There is no evidence that DOM has a physical presence in any of the territories it claims, derives financial income from those territories, or has created a single piece of physical infrastructure within their borders.
• While DOM claims that it has been "recognised" by several UN member states, the central and west African nations in question are well known for engaging in fiscal diplomacy. It is interesting to note that claims made by the Hutt River Province to have been "recognised" by UN members states are founded on paper agreements with - you guessed it - Burkina Faso and the Central African Republic. Furthermore, none of the countries that DOM claims to have "relations" with maintain a physical presence in any of DOM's "territories" - and neither does DOM maintain any physical presence in those countries.

So, what I suggest is:

• Remove all references to DOM from Antarctica, since their claim has about as much validity as a claim to territories on the Moon.
• Briefly mention DOM's claims in Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll and Rotuma, but make it clear that they are essentially without foundation.
• Remove all reference to DOM from Microstate. It simply isn't one.
• Remove all reference to DOM from Dominion. This is merely a promotional link that adds nothing of value to the article.
• Ensure that the entry on DOM in Micronation is factual and NPOV.

--Centauri 23:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

* The "Dominion of Melchizedek" has been identified by multiple international authorities as, first and foremost, a financial scam, created by convicted criminals.

This is only due to inacurate journalistic reporting of opinions from the hip that was repeated by such authorities. Can you list those authorities? Remember someone in power giving their personal opinion doesn't count, such as John Shockey, because his organization's only official statement refers to Melchizedek as an authority that licesned banks, and defines Melchizedek as a "sovereignty", although "non-recognized" by the US.

* There are no verifiable sources that support DOM's position over the Pacific islands, atolls and reefs it claims, and no evidence that any member of DOM has even visited most of them Rotuma being the only exception I'm aware of.

SBS national news broadcast in Australia showing the Iroijlaplap of Taongi declaring that he granted to Melchizedek a 50 years sovereign lease isn't a verifiable source, or the court in Fiji recording the sovereign leases over Solkope and a portion of Rotuma, or the Hawaiian university revealing the same?

* DOM's claim over a large portion of Antarctica is preposterous, and has no foundation in law. Again, there is no evidence that any member of DOM has ever been within 1000 kilometres of Antarctica, so even setting aside the legal question, DOM has made no attempt to enforce its own claim, rendering it entirely baseless.

It is not baseless when it is in treaties with UN member states, and we have confirmed with Dr. Dewey Painter, a high ranking offical of DOM that he has spent 6 months in Antarctica. Call him yourself and ask him for proof if you don't believe it. Melchizedek can take as much time as it wants to perfect its claim, so long as no other governement does so first.

* There is no evidence that DOM has a physical presence in any of the territories it claims, derives financial income from those territories, or has created a single piece of physical infrastructure within their borders.

What led you to this conclusion? Have you visited any territory claimed by Melchizedek?

* While DOM claims that it has been "recognised" by several UN member states, the central and west African nations in question are well known for engaging in fiscal diplomacy. It is interesting to note that claims made by the Hutt River Province to have been "recognised" by UN members states are founded on paper agreements with - you guessed it - Burkina Faso and the Central African Republic.

Can we see a link to these documents? Do they have independent sources such as the Washington Post supporting these claims?

Furthermore, none of the countries that DOM claims to have "relations" with maintain a physical presence in any of DOM's "territories" - and neither does DOM maintain any physical presence in those countries.

As of what date is your information?

So, what I suggest is:

* Remove all references to DOM from Antarctica, since their claim has about as much validity as a claim to territories on the Moon.

Not true.

• Briefly mention DOM's claims in Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll and Rotuma, but make it clear that they are essentially without foundation.

What is your level of authority or expertise to make this determination?

* Remove all reference to DOM from Microstate. It simply isn't one.

Knights of Malta is mentioned there, and Melchizedek isn't actually listed as such but only a reference to it under Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta. Certainly (besides a longer and better documented history) Melchizedek has more hallmarks of a microstate than SMOKM.

* Remove all reference to DOM from Dominion. This is merely a promotional link that adds nothing of value to the article.

Dominion of Melchizedek is a very well know state (albeit unusual, controversial, only recent in history, except for the Biblical claims) and the "dominion" part of its name adds to the article about "Dominion". There is a dominion aspect even to the word, Melchizedek. We're not trying to promote anything, just have a complete reference for all aspects of this subject, since it was so unfairly and incompletely portrayed in the past.

Unsigned interpolations above posted by 68.123.207.17

I think that the claims should NOT be included in island articles because of extremely low notability in given context. The item on Micronation should be kept under watch as it looks as irresistible target of a vandal. If the vandalism continues it should be reported on WP:VIP. Misplaced Pages isn't playground for jokes and trolls. Pavel Vozenilek 15:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the contibutions in question tend to rely on sources which falls short of being authoritative; they appear to exhibit a pro-DoM agenda. El_C 23:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)]]

I'd say the way the article is now appears ok to me, but I might provide some more evidence of its recognition and maybe a counter by saying it is not a member of any international organizations and provide some evidence of the 1993 recognition. Mbisanz 00:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hoax

Should not have link to Hoaxes as this category states: "To forestall edit wars, religions and religious figures are excluded from nomination for this category." Therefore because Melchisedek is based on the Bible and recognized by UN member state as ecclesiastical state, this reference must be removed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.47.161 (talk • contribs) on 17:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The link to hoaxes is justfied; the hoax is not the religion, but the alleged microstate. If someone were to post an article on a Baptist claim to Antarctica, it would fall under hoaxes. Septentrionalis 20:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you may be sincere in believing that Melchizedek is a hoax as a micronation.

Actually in a way you are correct, because Melchizedek never claimed to be a micrnation. Instead it has consistently claimed to be an ecclesiastical sovereignty for which it has received dejure recognition from at least one UN member state.

It has also gained a false and misleading reputation as fake country, but because it never claimed to be a country, it also doesn't deserve that label.

In fact it appers to me to be unique, somewhere between the SMOM and the Vatican with many other attributes.

Because it doesn't enjoy the same reputation or complicated long history as those more august sovereignties, that doesn't mean that it is not sincere in its claims.

The past 15 years of Melchizedek's history reveals consistency and growth in line with its original and current claims.

It is not a hoax that Melchizedek claims a section of the Antarctica. It may be a far stretch for them to claim it but their claim doesn't appear to me to be a hoax.

That is why I believe it is crazy to link it to hoaxes.

But is it more notable as a hoax than as an ecclesiastical sovereignty — somewhere in the middle between "SMOM and the Vatican" sounds rather vague. The article needs to reflect how it is percieved outside of Misplaced Pages, this is key. This means balanced material and presnetation. El_C 11:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Baptist claim to antarctica and unanswered questions of 68.123.207.17

I see that Centari hasn't answered question of 68.123.207.17 where he or she ask pertinent questions of his or other's statement such as Hutt having recognition from same governments.

Also, PMANDERSON, if the Baptist religion laid claim to Antarctica it wouldn't be a hoax it would be a fact. If you falsely published that Baptist Church laid claim to such then it would be a hoax, but since DoM really lays claim to Antarctica it isn't a hoax.

Furthermore, while the Baptist religion may have ecclesiastical goverance, it doesn't rise or seek to rise to the level of Vatican like statehood as Melchizedek does.

In some ways, Melchizedek has achieved more of the hallmarks of statehood than has the Vatican.

If the Vatican laid claim to a section of Antarctica, would you consider that a hoax.

I can't find where Melchizedek is largely known as a hoax.

While the Washington Post pointed out that aiming nuclear weapon from Ruthenia to France was a "Ruse that Roared" the article itself did not say that Melchizedek is a hoax, nor has any article that i've seen of any credibilty done so.

You're right. Melchizedech is not a hoax. It's a fraud. Big difference. An it looks like you have some competition too. Looks like they're selling the rug from under your feet! --Gene_poole 06:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Melchizedek has demonstrated that it is neither a hoax nor a fraud. Westarctica.com gives no competition to Melchizedek from the link you provided. What is your agenda to attempt to discredit a recognized ecclesiastical sovereignty? --[[User:69.104.16.189

|69.104.16.189 ]]

What Melchizedech has "demonstrated" is a propensity to produce official-looking documents which have no meaning in international law, a capacity to influence officials in several poverty-striken nations known for endemic official corruption, a desire to exploit internecine conflicts for its own financial benefit, and a longstanding association with banking fraud that has been reported extensively, throughout the world over more than a decade. Melchizedech's assertion that it is an "ecclesiastical sovereignty" stands in stark contrast with the fact that it has no association with any known religion. Westarctica's claims to a quarter of Antarctica have exactly the same legitimacy as Melchizedek's - none - although the later's fraudulent Antarctic land sales are at least of a much lower order of magnitude that the banking frauds perpetrated by agents of Melchizedek. --Gene_poole 02:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Gene, your claims fall short of the truth. Why do the Melchizedek documents have no meaning in international law? What has Melchizedek gained from the conflicts surrounding "Rotuma" if that is your reference? How is Melchizedek associated with fraud of banks it has licensed? So every government that has licensed a bank is associated with any fruad of that bank? Why should Melchizedek need to be associated with any known religion? And how did you determine that it has no association? That would be like saying that original Christianity had no association with the Jewish religion. Which agents of Melchizedek perpetrated banking frauds? The facts seem to be that non-agents, i.e. bank owners perpetrated the those frauds. From what I've read it was only a few banks out of 300 hundred that were licensed that gave Melchizedek this reputation. Since Melchizedek has official recognition from UN member states and treaties with such that mention Melchizedek's claim to 90-150 West Antarctica in those treaties, certainly that is of more consequence than the sily web site you linked. It is doubtful they sold any real estate in Antarctica, and the reason that a few of the banks licensed by Melchizedek were able to achieve fraud of a serious magnitude is due to the fact that Melchizedek is a functioning government, whereas the web site you listed has no reality in the world of governments.

67.124.49.20

You have reverted this page 6 times in 24 hours. This is a violation of the three revert rule. Please stop changing to an edition that has a POV Shocktm 23:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

What does POV indicate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.47.20 (talk • contribs) on 02:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

POV = Point of View. In this case you are presenting information that makes DoM look legitmate/real when it is far from it. Here are some things you should read before editing this or any other page.

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• How to avoid common mistakes

When commenting on talk pages or voting, you should always sign your name by typing in four tildes (~~~~). This way people will know who made the comment and can respond to you. Shocktm 20:55, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism in Progress

I have reported a Vandalism in Progress for this page by: 208.57.91.27, 67.124.49.20, 63.164.145.85, and 68.121.47.161 for their repeated attempts to change this article to one with a POV. The user(s) have been warned many time, but they continue to change this page and Ecclesiastical state and Bokak Atoll to their POV. Shocktm 20:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

This guy's been vandalizing for months at every chance. Why is he still being only blocked for short periods of time? Jdavidb 16:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No Sir, Madam, please seriously consider the following:

Some of you are the ones that has POVs here, as everything I and the others you quoted have only presented supportable facts and with balance and more depth.

For example, you think your point of view is more prevailing than dipomatic recognition from a UN member state. I am only presenting facts.

Another example is that you insist that the Washington Post stated that Melchizedek is a "ruse" where-in-fact it presented two possible "may" be options, one, "may" merely be a ruse to "may" be the "ultimate post modern state".

Also, I can not find anywhere in any Forbes article the word "ruse" but i can find the most recent reference to a Forbes article mentioning Melchizedek that refers to Melchizedek as "dubious".

I'm not the first one nor are any of the others you quoted the first to mention Melchizedek in the Taongi article, and the claim by Melchizedek is significant enough to have promted both Marshall Islands government to denounce it and the Taongi Iroijlaplap after that fact to grant a 50 years soveriegn lease which he delared on SBS Australian national TV.

How can you call an ecclesiastical state a micronation? Just because it has had negative opinions from the press and a few people like retired John Shockey, and bad experiences with banks it licensed doesn't take away its right to be recognized as it has been recognized by UN member states. Remember that the Vatican had its own banking scandals, which resulted in suicide.

Perhaps you want the Catholic religion to have a monopoly on ecclesiastical statehood?

How can it be vandalism to put back the original page that you din't create for Ecclesiastical State? Again, why should the Vatican be the only ecclesiastical state in the world? This apparently is your POV but not the fact.

Everyting I and the others have done to improve the text of the article about Melchizedek has given it more facts, depth and balance, without any POV and every fact brought forth is supportable.

If I were biased I wouldn't have left in the significant negative stuff. There were two links to the Adkission collection of only negative stuff, so I left the one there that links to the Shockey statement, but for the debunking one, not to be repetitive, I linked to that very negative article, which is actually an article, wherein the one that was linked from "Debunding Article" isn't an article at all but is still covered.

If Melchizedech is an "ecclesiastical state", by which I assume you mean a formally consitituted hierarchical religious institution with the rights of sovereign state, why is there no reference to that religion on the Melchizedech website, or in any of the many press reports concerning this entity? Assuming it actually has one, is Melchizedech's religion registered as such for taxation purposes in any recognized jurisdiction anywhere in the world, how many adherents does it have, what is its structure and the titles of its officers, what are its beliefs and practises, and if so, where are the external sources that can be accessed to confirm this? --Centauri 03:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy extrapolates Misplaced Pages:Consensus outside its virtual space, to, for our purposes, formal political, scholarly, journalistic, etc. consesus. I challenge that the pro-DoM contributor is magnifying certain favourable sources, ones that fall very short of amounting to such a consensus here and elsewhere. We can't keep going around like this in circle. I wish for the pro-DoM editor to be more critical and reflective, wrt the above, review closely and adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. Thanks. El_C 23:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

is DoM a Micronation?

Accroding to Misplaced Pages on Micronation, "This article is about entities that are not recognized by any world governments..."

Clearly Melchizedek should not be labeled as such due to the fact that it has received "diplomatic recognition" according to the Washington Post from at least one world government, i.e. the Central African Republic. The letter from the Central African Republic states that the recogntion is both formal and official and refers to Melchizedek as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty".

Melchizedek has its "House of Elders" and its own translation of the Bible which is in print.

It has all of the hallmarks of a state, including, citizens, disputed territorial claims, even sovereign leases, one from the "sole sovereign owner" of Solkope during the time the Fijian constitution was suspended, and one from the Iroijlapap of Taongi.

It not only asserts control over its citizens through its laws, but it contols the entities it allows to be incorporated under its laws. It has a court system that has been recognized by US courts.

Melchizedek seems to have gone far beyond what can be seen from the category of "micronations" and at least rises above the level in many aspects of the Military Order of Malta to statehood.

Perhaps as a compromise, the article can call Melchizedek an "ecclesiastical sovereignty" instead of a micronation or ecclesiastical state, since it has been refered as such by that world governemnt, CAR, and it seems to rise above the category of "micronation".

Micronations also generally only have one or two people actively involved in their government, whereas, Melchizedek seems to have officials all over the world working actively on sovereign leases, recognition, etc. Melchizedek existed before microations began popping up on the Internet, even though, NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw called Melchizedek "the first nation on the Internet" back in the late 1990s.

It also appears that scams associated with banks licensed by Melchizedek stopped after the House of Elders of DoM elected Richard James McDonald as Melchizedek's "president" several years back. Perhaps this will reduce the fear that any positive statement about Melchizedek could be used to further frauds, and since McDonald is a retired law enforcement officer with no apparent criminal record. -Johnski 16:02, September 18, 2005

When examining claims of sovereignty on places you have never heard of, the first thing you should do is to take any statment by that entity with a large grain of salt. Many people use double talk and comparison to other entites to 'prove' that their entity has sovereignty, when it is just made up think. In order believe in the entity, proof needs to be provided.

I will address some of your issues/claims.

The DoM indicates that it was recognized by the Central African Republic as a "ecclesiastical sovereignty". First no one consideres the CAR to be good source of recogntion, it is a poor country in Africa that is susceptible to bribery or misunderstand. Two the phrase "ecclesiastical sovereignty" makes no sense. It uses the wrong phrase/tense - if it is like the Holy See, it would be a ecclesiastical sovereign entity or ecclesiastical sovereign state. The claim of recogntion seems to be bogus or at least a misunderstanding. Also we only have the DoM website and a few newspaper articles repeating what is on th website as proof. It would be better to get the proof from the country providing the recogntion (like the statements we get from the US and Marshall Island denieing the claim)

Shocktm, you made me doubt my understanding of the word, "sovereignty" so I looked it up on http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sovereignty and found that the tense is correct as it can be a noun, and please note the definitions. If you used it in the tense you might be thinking of it would sound better, like, the ecclesiastical sovereignty of Melchizedek, or that, Melchizedek has ecclesiastical sovereignty over it citizens.

It is also easy to make a website where you can claim anything you want including a government/territorial claims/etc. See http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/RHBJ.htm for a website that admits it is making this up and compare it to the DoM's website. Or compare the DoM website to the Hutt River Province, Sealand, Conch Republic You will quickly see that the DoM website does not provide enough proof to believe any of its claims.

Newspapers/TV/Radio have been tricked before to publish articles that are untrue. So have a news article does not proved much proof of something being true. Many articles from repuable sorces need to be made before something should be considered a fact. There is a lack of that with regards to the DoM - the article that do talk about the DoM use phrases that indicated that the DoM is not real or at least they considere it suspect.

We have actual no idea of how many people are part of the DoM, but it does not matter much as even some of the entities listed on the Micronation page have had hundreds of people involoved (see Conch Republic for example). Most everyone who has reead about the DoM consideres it a micronation and specificaly a micronation invloved in fraud. Until evidence is provided to the contrary, this should be what the article indicates. Shocktm 21:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with what you have written, as it doesn't matter how poor a nation is, diplomatic recognition from a UN member state is more compelling than anything you can say about it. So assuming there was financial incentive (no evidence of this) the US normally gives financial incentives to third world countries to get what it wants, but it doesn't make the US any less legitimate does it? There was no misunderstanding with the letter of official recognition as it invites DoM to open a diplomatic mission in CAR, etc. Search the term "ecclesiastical sovereignty" and you will find that it is a term used by others.

The web link you showed was apparently make by a person that went to all of that trouble to discredit DoM. This actually gives more credence to DoM that it has such lively enemies, in my judgement. You have no idea of the motives of those that attempt to discredit Melchizedek, it could all stem from some religious competition, or policial POV.

Remember that DoM was recognized before it had any presence on the Internet. Not only that, but the Washington Post isn't the only source to note the recognition from CAR, and there have been other credible publications that have noted other recognition to boot. If the Washington Post made an error on the recognition, you can be sure they would have later retracted it. I actually took the time to read the Melchizedek Bible, and it is a serious work, not something that is made up to back a fraud. Have you read it? I suspect that some of the people behind trying to keep Melchizedek in the micronation category think that by doing so it may lend more credibility to a micronation in which they may have involvment.

The press has never been able to put Melchizedek in the actual frauds, only banks that it licensed, and there is a huge difference, which seems to be ignored. Keep in mind that the SEC did not sue Melchizedek only a lawyer bringing clients to a bank licensed by Melchizedek. Same goes for criminal prosecutions against those that used banks licensed by Melchizedek. It is also significant that when the US OCC made reference to "Melchizedek" as the licensing authority for a DoM bank, it referred to Melchizedek as a "sovereignty" in its written publication, although not "recognized" by the USA. It never wrote, phony, fraudulent, fake, fictitious, fictional, micronation, etc.

This is a misstatement of the nature of diplomatic recognition. There are only two possibilities: recognition and non-recognition. "Non-recognized sovereignity" means something we do not recognize as sovereign, not some middle position. But I seem to have said this before. Septentrionalis 03:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello PMANDERSON, I'd rather not split hairs with you, but if that were the case, it would say, "non-sovereignty". There is a huge difference between the two points, and "non-recognized sovereignty" is a form of defacto recognition of Melchizedek as a "sovereignty". You might want to study the subject of "defacto recognition" which Melchizedek seems to have lots of from around the world. In fact, a sovereign is a soverign whether recognized or not.

I believe that point is made somewhere in a wiki article. You may be confused between the fact that CAR diplomatically recognizing Melchizedek and the fact that US does not. Because US does not, they don't have to recognize the recognition of any other state that does. So their saying that they don't diplomatically recognize Melchizedek doesn't mean that other states don't too. Johnski 04:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

If the Treasury's fraud warning had meant de facto sovereignity, it would have said so. But unless some genuinely original falsehood is added to this talk page, I do not expect to comment further. Silence implies contempt. Septentrionalis 04:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

First, it wasn't a fraud warning, and second, when de facto recognition is intentionally or unintentionally extended, rarely, if ever, are the words, "de facto" used. I didn't say it was recognizing that Melchizedek is a defacto sovereignty, what I meant was that when it defined Melchizedek as a "non-recognized" sovereignty that it extended a type of defacto recognition to Melchizedek. Also, it recognized that the relative bank was under the jurisdiction of Melchizedek, a form of defacto recognition of Melchizedek as an authority that regulates said bank. Johnski 05:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Your point that news papers can write things that aren't true, that is true, but the same goes for the negative POV expressed, they could be wrong as well. In fact, you can see that Forbes' opinion of Melchizedek evolved over time to "dubious". Johnski 22:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Johnski, believe in what you want to believe in. You need a concensus of people to change the article to what you want it to read and you will not find that here. Nothing about the DoM makes it look like a real country or even the SMOM. In fact the thing it looks like the most is Sealand, which everyone calls a micronation. The overwelming majority of information out on the web or in print indicates that the DoM calls it a micronation and a fraud. When many say it is micronation and a fraud, it probably is micronation and a fraud.

I looked up the phrase "ecclesiastical sovereignty" on Google and found it used 371 times, many of which refere to articles on the DoM (many calling the DoM a fraud micronation). Sovereignty is a correct word but with the adjective of ecclesiastical it only refers to the juristicion of a church (and the phrase that should be used is ecclesiastical juristiction, not ecclesiastical sovereignty - it is misusing the definition of sovereignty). DoM is not claiming to be a church, it is claiming to be a country (Church do not make claims to land).

The website I refer to was not created to debunk, discredit, or challange the DoM, rather it was one person's attempt to write an alternative history (a type of fiction). The point I was trying to make is that the website looks real and could be misread by those who do not know that. Similarly the book 'The DaVinchi Code' is believed by some to be real even when the author calls it a work of fiction.

When you provide evidence that the DoM is real, I will examine the evidence and if it is creditable, I will agree to change the article. Until then the article should remain the same. I will also stop discussing the DoM until evidence is provided to prove its existence. This discussion has not change your opinion or mine and continuing it will get us no further to a point of agreement. Shocktm 20:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Shocktm, I doubt that you or PMANDERSON speak for everyone that posts here or will in the future. Part of the problem is that Melchizedek is unique amongst states. You want it to fit into this ecclesiastical box or that sovereign box and you don't want to mix the two. The fact is that Melchizedek has always claimed to be "an ecclesiastical sovereignty" and never has it claimed to be a "country" or a "micronation". Part of the perception problem has been that it has been perceived as claiming to be a "country" which got it the false fictional country label. The Vatican mixes the sovereign and ecclesiastical elements, so why can not Melchizedek do the same. You are like a doubting Thomas that has to see and touch it yourself. I think you visiting a Melchizedek territory and seeing a Melchizedek governement ruling that area the only way you will ever believe. I'm not trying to convince you that Melchizedek is real, I'm only showing you that Melchizedek has the hallmarks of an ecclesiastical state, perhaps weak in all areas, but enough to capture the essence in this article.

What do we have to prove existence of Melchizedek.

1. Constitution, laws, government officials in three branches of government, territorial claims, sovereign leases.

2. Human and corporate citizens, the evidence which is seen throughout the press.

3. Unique Bible translation that the Dominion of Melchizedek seems to be based on.

4. Credible Press pointing to diplomatic recognition from UN member state, (copy is publiclly available) and other forms of recognition.

5. evidence of sovereign leases seen on Hawaiian University web site for one island and SBS TV on another island.

6. Claim to Jerusalem as homeland with the Bible teaching that Melchizedek is the eternal eccesiastical and soverign authority over (Jeru)Salem. Dominion of Melchizedek lays claim to this spiritual heritage consistently for the past 15 years. In this aspect Melchizedek could be considered a government in exile.

Please show me how any "micronation" has achieved this much or can show this depth. If you insist on leaving the micronation article as it is, it should say that there is an exception where a micronation has achieved diplomatic recognition from a world government as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty".

Johnski 05:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

All of the above, apart from the bible translation and "recognition by a UN member state" are common to most serious historic micronations. Producing a bible translation means only that those doing so have a command of Hebrew and/or Greek - not that they possess "sovereignty". Claiming Jerusalem is the same as claiming Mars - total nonsense - unless there exists the means of physically imposing the claim, which there isn't. The Hutt River Province has been "recognised" by the Ivory Coast in exactly the same way Melchizedech has been "recognised" - by paying money to a corrupt official in a poor African nation to sign a meaningless document on official letterhead. None of this makes Melchizedech "unique", "sovereign", "ecclesiastical" or anything else other than a fraud that exists primarily to part the gullible from large amounts of money. Here endeth the lesson.--Gene_poole 23:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sir, can you point me to the link of that letter of recognition from the Ivory Coast, and is there any independent verification of that from a credible source like the Washington Post? Hutt seems closer to a state than any other listed in micronations except Melchizedek and perhaps Sealand. 208.57.91.27 05:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you contact the Hutt River Province Vice-Minister of Foreign Afairs. Hutt River - which, unlike Melchizedech, does actually physically inhabit the territory it claims to possess - doesn't make a habit of publishing its private correspondence online. Having a claim documented in a "credible source" does not validate the claim. Credible media organisations document all manner of outlandish and invalid claims on a regular basis; that doesn't make any of them them true.--Gene_poole 05:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

So, a verbal confirmation from a micronation itself is stronger and better evidence for you than the Washington Post (the most respected Washington based publication) and published copy of the letter of recogntion?Samspade 22:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Taken in context with the fact that Hutt River has actually named an Ivorian diplomatic representative, based in the Ivory Coast, whose existence as such can be verified, yes. In addition, Hutt River Province has existed for over 30 years and has never been involved in banking fraud, so its representatives are a far more credible source than a group founded by convicted felons that has been intrinsically linked by US, Italian and other governments with massive fraud, and which appears to have no other raison d'etre than to act as a front for the perpetration of banking fraud. --Gene_poole 03:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Hutt does have that advantage, if true, to ruling from its own territory. Since you interested in Hutt why don't you change its opening identifier to a "principality"? On the other hand, they are landlocked, and Melchizedek has advantage of diversity. Your agrument that they have less credibility because some of the banks they have licensed used fraud in their business practices is not a convincing agrument, when their government's dejure recognition has been confirmed by perhaps the most respected political publication in the world.

I don't buy your agruement but do vote for giving into the fact that Melchizedek is a recognized government. If you can provide something like Melchizedek has in terms of recognition for Hutt, I'll push that they too be moved to the category of microstate.

SamuelSpade 03:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)