Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reported the vandalism on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

* 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. Wikipedia isn't playground for jokes and trolls. Pavel Vozenilek 15:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)]][reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, this is key. This means balanced material and presnetation. El_C 11:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?