| Revision as of 19:00, 25 October 2005 editDavidpdx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,793 edits →Dispute← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:48, 25 October 2005 edit undoKAJ (talk | contribs)129 edits →DisputeNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :How about removing DOM completely instead? That is even a better idea ] 19:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC) | :How about removing DOM completely instead? That is even a better idea ] 19:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::There seems to be consensus to keep mention of DOM, so the only concern now is to remove the bias. If we remove DOM, someone is sure to return it, so it seems best to get this settled now with the help of Isotope23. He seems to be unbiased and I think it best if we try to accept his help. ] 19:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
Revision as of 19:48, 25 October 2005
Dispute
Give me a bit of time to find the source for the Solkope land dispute. If anyone is truly concerned about the factuality of this claim I will pull the whole reference to DOM and just leave a location stub in the interim.--Isotope23 13:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I can't find the website I found the dispute information on, so in the interest of fairness, I've removed that portion for the time being. Hopefully I'll have more time to find it later. I did tweak the wording because the legality of the lease documents and the ownership of the island by Hiagi Apao are purported by DoM, but have never been conclusively proven. The documents were used as evidence in a crimal case (State v Riogi FJHC 81), but no ruling was made on the legality of the documents (they were presented as evidence of seditious intent by the defendant and the legal claims of ownership were in no way considered in this case). I write this because I'm already seeing the potential for a POV edit war where anon IP's try to introduce POV text into this article. If this starts turning into an edit war I will request an edit lock on this article.--Isotope23 14:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Gentlemen: Until there is agreement on which text to use, it might be better to remove the strong bias about Melchizedek. The following text has been suggested for the opening paragraph instead of the one currently in use in the article about Melchizedek. "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a micronation ostensibly aspiring to ecclesiastical statehood. It is known for having licensed banks that fraudulently operated in many parts of the world. One of its founders, Tzemach Ben David Netzer Korem, was involved in the attempted secession of the Fijian island of Rotuma."
- One of the reasons for this change is that the frauds have only been linked to the banks licensed by Melchizedek and not direclty to Melchizedek. For those that want to make sure that Melchizedek is connected to fraud they still have it in this less biased version. KAJ 16:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- How about removing DOM completely instead? That is even a better idea Davidpdx 19:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- There seems to be consensus to keep mention of DOM, so the only concern now is to remove the bias. If we remove DOM, someone is sure to return it, so it seems best to get this settled now with the help of Isotope23. He seems to be unbiased and I think it best if we try to accept his help. KAJ 19:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Sources
In case anyone cares...
AFD debate link
This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)