Revision as of 20:18, 10 October 2005

DOM Reference

Why remove the reference to Melchizedek

Bokak (as Taongi Islands) is claimed by the Government of the Dominion of Melchizedek, an embryonic ecclesiastical state. The claim was rejected by the Government of the Marshall Islands,however, subsequent to the RMI encouraging friendly nations to avoid recognizing any claims of Melchizedek that are within RMI's territorial limits, the Iroijlaplap of Taongi declared on film which was broadcast on Australian SBS TV that he granted Melchizedek a 50 years sovereign lease over Taongi, valid until 2049.

67.124.49.20 06:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Bollar, what claims did Melchizedek make at the time of the RMI memo, probably none? If i remember they only had an assignment of deveopment rights, but after the memo, it was on SBS TV in Australia that they received a 50 years sovereign lease from Taongi's Iroijlaplap. (Anonymously posted by user:68.123.207.17

DOM had already announced their plans for Bokak, as indicated on their own site as of December 12, 1998. The RMI memo directly addresses this plan. As for the SBS broadcast, please cite the source and broadcast date. Is this a broadcast of the "interview made for DOM TV?"

On the 4th day of September 1987, Murjel Hermios, the recognized Iroijlaplap (king or paramount chief) and owner of the Northern Atolls of the Marshall Islands', Ratak Chain, granted a Special Power of Attorney to Robert Moore wherein Mr. Moore as Alab, gained for 55 years, the assignable right to develop Taongi Atoll and determine its highest and best use. On May 28, 1997, Robert Moore assigned all of his rights, title and interest in Taongi; and authorized the "Dominion of Melchizedek to do every act and thing necessary to transfer unto itself said rights, title and interest, and sanction(ed) its objectives to develop, govern and administer an environmentally sound business community, investment and tax haven paradise at Taongi Atoll, ultimately styled after that of Hong Kong". According to a former DOM Minister of External Affairs for Asian Pacific, the uninhabited Taongi, located at approximately 14.35 North latitude and 169.0 East longitude is one of the most beautiful group of islands in the world. The RMI has denounced DOM's plans to move Taongi into a sovereign status under Melchizedek, yet some of the RMI's top officials have indicated a willingness to discuss the RMI officially recognizing DOM.

Bollar 22:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Atol and connection to fraud

A lot of relevant information culd be written about such atol. That some low notability fraudster used its name is IMHO the least important think here and therefore has no place here. Pavel Vozenilek 14:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Samboy 22:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, and don't know where you get your information, because what I have learned is that far more than some low notability fraudster simply using the name of Taongi, when in fact, there is not only a sovereign lease from the recognized Iroijlaplap of Taongi to Melchizedek documented on by SBS TV Australia, but Melchizedek has official and formal diplomatic recognition as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty" from at least one UN member state and treaties of peace and recognition from three other UN member states. Not only has the fact of recognition been published by media around the globe, but Melchizedek has been featured on many international TV networks. I don't know of any micronation that has received the media attention nor the level of recognition that Melchizedek has received, regardless of the negative spin often presented.

67.124.49.20 06:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing obsession by unknown user

An unknown user has been editing this article as well as related articles inserting POV statements into the articles. To this unknown person, please stop. If you would take the time to read and follow the rules of Misplaced Pages you would have alot more sucess in getting your point across. Instead, you push your own agenda regardless of the guidelines set by Misplaced Pages. Until you do so, myself as well as others will continue to revert the vandalism that you insist on adding to these articles. Davidpdx 9/14/05 10:25 (UTC)

David: Please look up Misplaced Pages's meaning of vandalism, and note that Bollar added Melchizedek to this topic, not I, and you are the one that is obsessed with removing it, as i'm only trying to restore it: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bokak_Atoll&oldid=5910940 with reasonable editing, however, I do appreciate your trying to help me to get my point across. I'm a slow learner and am making slow progress in this regard. Please be patient with me. Regards, John 67.124.49.20 21:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, your claims have not factual basis. You continue to revert this page back in violation of the rules of Misplaced Pages. The last 5 edits were done by you under the unidentified user 67.124.49.20. I'm not sure how you are claiming someone else posted those revisions. Maybe a ghost did it? Nevertheless, we will continue reverting this page and ban you if necessary.Davidpdx 9/15/05 4:22 (UTC)

David, there is plenty of evidence of the factual basis for the editions all of which I believe I have provided. Please take a specific point that you believe is not factual and lets take one point at a time. I'm not saying the last 5 reversions with id 67.124.49.20 weren't mine, I'm saying that Bolar is the one that started mentioning Melchizedek on this page, not me! Cordially, John 67.124.49.20 07:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

First off, just because you say that someone (in this case Bolar)talked about something, doesn't give you the right to post anything you want. Reading back through the conversation, it was indeed you that mentioned ROM first. Second, there has to be a concensus of people that agree with the facts that are in dispute. You have failed to take that into consideration. If I went to the page for Bush and started spouting off things that were unproven, I'd get banned. This is what happened to you. If you would like to play by the rules, then great. How hard is it to sign up for an ID if you have no ill intentions? Please answer that question. I hope you enjoyed your vacation from Misplaced Pages, as I'm willing to give you one anytime you need it. Sincerely, Davidpdx 9/15/05 2:24 (UTC)

David, I really don't think that I have violated the spirit of the rules here as all of my work has been in good faith. The example you give of spouting off about Bush is way off base. You didn't give me any words that I wrote quoted back to me that you feel is spouting off. I believe that my numerical id is more honest than a lettered one, because the numbered one gives a more real id, i.e. phyical or cyberspace location and makes it harder to make multiple ids. I don't recall if I was first to mention Melchizedek on the talk page, but I'm certain that I wasn't the first to mention it on the article page, so if you really believe what you wrote give me the link that predates Bollars that I showed above. My only point is that I'm not the one to have the idea to put Melchizedek in this article, but can't understand why some feel it doesn't belong there. If my rewrite of Bollar offends you let me know what part is so bad, and recommend a change to it. Looking forward to your more studied response and more success on my part from this approach. Sincerely, John 67.124.49.20 07:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

First, your IP is not that real of an ID as I learned the hard way today. I reverted what I thought was vandalism based on an IP address of someone who had been trashing pages. Someone told me that more one person can be working of that IP. I'm just trying to point out that it can cause some confusion. Second, I'm not trying to be mean, I really do think you should try to build more of a consensus on what you are trying to add to the article. Just because you agree with the proof, doesn't mean a large number of Wikipedians agree with it. So my suggestion is to revert the edit, I won't put vandalism this time. Instead I will put "See Talk Page" or something similar. Hopefully that will be seen as a kinder more gentle act by you. Thus we will be at a truce.

If you sign up for an account, I'll make you a deal. Send me all of your information (be it links, documents, etc) and I will read them. Even if it's 500 pages (ok, please not that much!). I'll tell you honestly what I think. If necessary, I'll give you an email address you can send something to me if perhaps it is not availble on the internet. In return, your promise that between now and the end of the week you won't revert this page, Ecclesiastical state or Dominion of Melchizedek. This will give me a chance to read through whatever you send me.

So I'm offering to help, the ball is in your court. If you would like to, feel free to leave a response either here and/or on my talk page (which I will see when I log on). Davidpdx 9/16/05 9:30 (UTC)

Davidpdx, OK, I took your advice and got a user name. It won't take 500 pages to get my point to you, as it isn't that complicated. Let's just take one point at a time. You can pick the first thing that you see I have posted and give me the reason that it isn't correct, and I'll give you my response, how's that? When I tried to click onto your name above it sent me somewhere other than your page. John Johnski 00:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

John, I apologize for my lack of a follow up. As I explained before, sometimes the bs on here just really makes me mad. Most of it had to do with thing other then what we have discussed. Anyway, I would like to see proof in regards to the claim about DOM. Please send me the information. I will leave you an email address. Davidpdx 9/28/05 11:22 (UTC)

Posting of information on this page without consensus

There seems to be no consensus regarding the information about DOM, yet one or two people persist on posting the same information over and over. Please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Consensusas well as Misplaced Pages:POV pushing. (Side note: I made some minor changes to this talk page to make it more user friendly). Davidpdx 9/25/05 12:21 (UTC)

It seems more than a few people agree with the view you are rejecting. I also see that Johnski followed you advice but you then dropped the ball. Which leads me to believe that he is more sincere.

And who would you be, anonymous poster? -- The Anome 08:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did drop the ball. The reason is larger then just simply this page, but more over some of the bs that is going on Misplaced Pages. I got into a hot argument with someone over another page due to the political garbage (much worse then what is being posted here) that was being posted. I basically blew off Misplaced Pages for a few days. It's not a lack of sincerity.

I would still infact like to see the proof he has. I have left a message on his page asking him to discuss the subject on this talk page so some consensus can be reached. Davidpdx 9/28/05 11:19 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else here, but I at least am fairly certain that the mysterious anonymous IP/multi-identity DOM promoter is either one of the Pedleys or the current "President" Richard McDonald. The technique that this editor has adopted of claiming that frauds perpetrated by the founders and agents of Melchizedek are somehow divorced from the DOM itself is described at length in most of the articles that expose DOM's criminal activities. --Gene_poole 00:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have severe doubts about the claim. The thing I'm trying to prevent is a revert war. Basically I'm saying, let's settle this once and for all. After that, if it continues it then becomes vandalism in my opinion. There are discussions going on in terms of what to do about the pages for Ecclesiastical state and Ecclesiastical government as well. The same claim is being made on those pages as well as many others. At some point it's either provide the proof and see if it's sufficiant, if it isn't then it can't be posted anymore. Davidpdx 9/29/05 7:43 (UTC)

"Eleven islands" claim

I've removed a claim that the atoll consists of eleven islands: I can't see them on any satellite views, just a single atoll. Of course, if you know different, please feel free to link to a cite, and to a satellite image at a reputable source. Note: links to the "Dominion of Melchizedek" website are unlikely to be regarded as authoritative. -- The Anome 08:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

29 sept

Gotta say I like the new version much better as it's been toned down. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You would hope so. At least for now it has. Davidpdx 9/29/05 7:48 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion

The consensus discussion regarding whether DOM has control over Bokak Atoll is taking place on the Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek. Please do not change this until the debate is settled. After that a consensus discussion will be held on this page as to the actuall wording of the article. Davidpdx 9/30/05 4:30 (UTC)

Bokak (as the "Taongi Islands") has been claimed as part of its sovereign territory by the "Government of the Dominion of Melchizedek", an entity, aspiring to statehood, that has a history of licensing banks that defaud investors. The only basis for this claim seems to be related to a "sovereign master lease" granted by the Iroijlaplap of Taongi Atoll.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Bokak_Atoll"

I think it is much easier to deal with this seperately because it is a much smaller issue than the entire Melchizedek story. Therefore, over here please consider that this version appears to perfectly factual and balanced, because it has claimed as part of its sovereign territory Taongi and DOM clearly is an entity, aspiring to statehood, that has a history of licensing banks that defaud investors. This gives the counter balance in a polite way, that "The only basis for this claim seems to be related to a 'sovereign master lease' granted by the Iroijlaplap of Taongi Atoll." There is no dispute over whether or not the Iroijlaplap granted such a lease, only the fact as to the meaning of the lease, which should be left for readers to decide without opinions of our writers inserting stuff.SamuelSpade 22:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, it is very much part of the Melchizedek issue. If it can't be proven that Bokak Atoll or any other territory it claims is legitimate, then it should not be mentioned in this article.

As to the claim of it being "perfectly factual and balanced" this is something neither you nor John has proven yet. If you look at John's talk page, I posted links to the rules on Misplaced Pages in terms of sourcing. The proof that the two of you are using is not sufficent at this point. If I don't change it, I guarentee someone else will. You can't simply break the rules that are set by Misplaced Pages to create what you think is a fair and balanced article.

In terms of this article and the DOM article, there is still no consensus. Therefore, until there is it has to remain as it is written currently. I have asked both you to post the links to articles from SBS and others, which I have not yet read. Davidpdx 14:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There is consensus that the Iroijlaplap of Taongi was seen on SBS TV saying that he "granted Melchizedek a 50 year master sovereign lease over Taongi." The only dispute is over the significance of that lease. The way this is written now clearly lets the reader decide the significance of that instead of a Wikipedian making his or her opinion of its meaning, so please revert to the compromise version that is clearly factual and balanced. If you don't revert it, you can be sure someone else will. This is clearly a smaller issue than the entire article about Melchizedek. While the entire article of Melchizedek may never be resolved and end up a reversion war, this issue is small enough to resolve now.SamuelSpade 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I have now added a tag claiming there is a dispute of facts on this page. There needs to be a consensus regarding this material. This material DIRECTLY relates to the debate going on on the Dominion of Melchizedek page as well as the Ecclesiastical State page. Simply changing it does not mean you have consensus. Davidpdx 9/30/05 8:07 (UTC)

Please DO NOT remove NPOV tag. The material in this article IS being disputed. If you remove the tag again, I will report it as vandalism. Davidpdx 10/3/05 8:53 (UTC)