On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Zoe wrote:
Micronations are not a subculture. They are figments of rather fevered imaginations.
And none of your examples is anywhere in the same category.
Zoe
The Cunctator <cunctator(a)kband.com> wrote:On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 22:06,
daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
I would like to think that we are trying to put
together a serious
encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with whether we are paper or not.
We are. We have entries on [[Dyavaprthivi]], [[Georges Clemenceau]],
[[Post Falls, Idaho]], [[Shanghai solitaire]], [[SPAM]], [[existentialism]],
etc. Which entries are "serious", and which are not?
The micronations fit right in. Micronationalism is a legitimate and
interesting subculture that most likely presages large-scale
sociopolitical dynamics in the coming decades. (As are [[MMORPG]]s, by
the way. We're sadly lacking a [[The Sims Online]] entry. Terrible!)
I'd say yes & no.
I vaguely recall some guys trying to set up a Micronation in the South
Pacific on a coral atoll few decades ago. They made the news when the King
who claimed that atoll (& had a few thousand subject & an army) rounded
them up & put them on the next plane out of his kingdom. If the activities
of some would-be Micronation types actually amount to something tangible,
then let the article stand.
But if there is no proof that this isn't a running joke of a bunch of
drinking buddies, then delete it.
My criteria for any article about a ``Micronation" include some tangible
proof that someone tried to make the idea work, or that the event gathered
enough attention that someone will look for information about it. An example
would be ``Emperor" Norton, a colorful character of 19th century San
Francisco.
Many of the Micronations discussed do not meet the standards I set out.
Geoff