Talk:Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia

Micronation

Is "micronation" really the best way to describe this? Most people think of that as something small in size, and Araucania & Patagonia covered a large amount of territory. I'm going to change the wording to " a self-proclaimed independent state" from the example of Confederate States of America. -- Infrogmation 00:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think that's correct - micronations are smaller than countries like Andorra and Monaco and claimed area of Araucania and Patagonia was much geater. It might qualify as a separatist attempt or something like that but no micronation - Skysmith 08:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Micronations are unrecognised statelike entities that have a largely or wholly ephemeral in nature, and this certainly qualifies. --Gene_poole 04:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like definition creep to me. Do you wish to add that description to Confederate States of America as well? -- Infrogmation 12:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition creep? Methinks you haven't actually read the definition - otherwise you wouldn't have missed the term "ephemeral" - which most certainly does not apply to the CSA. --Gene_poole 11:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources? --kingboyk 15:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

List of monarchs

According to the article, "King Orelie-Antoine I eventually died penniless in France in 1878 after years of fruitless struggle to regain his perceived legitimate authority over his conquered kingdom." And thus ended the Kingdom. On what basis then, and from what reliable sources, do we have a list of monarchs after this gentleman? --kingboyk 15:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I found references for the monarches after Antoine/Antonio I. From the snippets I can see on Google Books, I can verify the order of succession and the fact that all of those names are referred to as kings or queens of Araucania (I suppose they'd be considered pretenders or a kind of royal house in exile), but I can't verify the actual dates listed in the article. The Braun Menéndez reference, in fact, includes the following: "Antonio III, quien antes de su muerte, ocurrida en 1951, abdicó en favor de su descendiente el príncipe Felipe, actual pretendiente al trono." Which suggests that Felipe's "reign" started no later than 1951. So I wouldn't have any problem with taking the dates out of the list until they can be verified. PubliusFL 16:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, you probably deserve a barnstar for sourcing that. I'll check it out later. Thanks. --kingboyk 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Checked out, and it's a job well done. Are you able to add any prose to fill in the missing years between the death of Orelie-Antoine and the more recent activities of his descendent, Felipe? --kingboyk 19:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

There's really little reason to edit war on using either the "former country" or "micronation" infobox template. None of them mean whenever this place was one or the other thing. It's just a technical tool to generate a rectangle at the right with useful data. We may discuss which infobox to use if one of them is better in providing the important summary information, or if the other generates redundant, anachronic or wrong information. If both ones are acceptable, the best thing to do would be simply to drop it. MBelgrano (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

An infobox for a state which didn't exist in reality makes no sense. --Otberg (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no state at all, there was no king, no capital, no official language, no borders, no flag, no Coat of arms - that was just the curious fantasy of Orelie-Antoine de Tounens and his followers. --Otberg (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

United Baltic Duchy never existed either but it has an Infobox. Spongie555 (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right, the United Baltic Duchy wasn't a state either. I remove the infobox there too. --Otberg (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the infobox is not meant to clarify the nature of the topic of the article, but to provide a simple summary of the information about it. MBelgrano (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Araucanía y Patagonia was never recognized by the Chilean government as a sovereign state, instead they took advantage of this situation of confusion and began massively to set their troops in Araucanian land, conquesting it years later. I have sourced that it was an unrecognized state with my history school book, and restored the infobox. Diego Grez (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It was not only a unrecognized state, it wasn't a state at all, a state that never existed in reality. There were no borders, no elections, no parliament, no courts, no police, no army, no civil servants ... The population even did not recognize the existence of this "state". The Infobox Former State is misleading all users extremely. --Otberg (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going to cite the book I have added to reference it was an unrecognized state. (The book, in fact, is given by the Chilean government to the schools, so it is reliable) "Durante la década de 1860, la acción del ejército en la zona se intensificó con el argumento de detener un posible levantamiento indígena fomentado por la llegada del comerciante francés Orelie Antoine de Tounens, autoproclamado rey de la Araucanía, que había iniciado negociaciones con algunos caciques mapuches. Con este objetivo, el Estado comisionó al coronel Cornelio Saavedra para que iniciara un plan de ocupación militar del territorio mapuche. [...] Su estado nunca fué reconocido por el Estado chileno, y fué enviado a un manicomio." I also found a webpage which could be used to reference this, too: "[...] Se construyó un estado legítimo y soberano para así ser reconocido internacionalmente, el cual desde su propia naturaleza fue creado para ajustarse a la legalidad y a la coyuntura de la comunidad internacional." Cheers! :) Diego Grez (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Infobox Former Country makes no sense in this article, because is suggests there have been some kind of state, which is wrong. Do you really want to create hoaxes in en-WP? --Otberg (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not a hoax, it was an attempt to create the state, for a reason it says it was unrecognized and it is in exile, in France, despite it did not succeed in the Araucanía. Diego Grez (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a hoax to suggest there was a Sovereign state by the Infobox Former Country. Almost nothing which constitutes a state was existing: no capital, no borders, no parliament, no courts, no civil servants, no police, no army, no constition. There were just some guys who started a curios attempt. --Otberg (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The name of the infobox does not matter much, really. There's no need to fight all over again about the same thing; it was not a sovereign state, it was an attempt to create one! The infobox is only used to describe the "kingdom", despite it never came to existence. As far as the information in the rest of the article is correct, the infobox doesn't matter much. Diego Grez (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the infobox suggests all people who don't read the whole article, the Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia was a state in real. If there are no proposals to change the infobox, it should be removed. --Otberg (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've got enough of your arrogance. Do whatever you want. I only wanted to help, that's my reality. Diego Grez (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, do you really want to mislead our readers? I don't believe. I changed the infobox-text as suggested in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. --Otberg (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You know the readers don't actually know what type of infobox it is just that it has an infobox. Pretty much all infoboxes are the same except sports ones. But the issue was resolved. Spongie555 (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Otberg, you are the only one who is disputing the article's neutrality. I don't see anything wrong with having the other infobox... Diego Grez (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something you have not complied yet: the text of the infobox is changed already; the article's neutrality is not disputed anymore, because it is obvious now the kingdom was just a proposal. --Otberg (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

... Diego Grez (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Micronation?

Maybe we should classify this as a micronation? The Mapuche and supporters say the kingdom is in exile and its more of a micronation now like Sealand. Spongie555 (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No threre are no Mapuche supporters, the "kindom in exile" is just a curious joke. --Otberg (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

According this website which is a offical Mapuche nation website they do support it, [1] but really they just want to have an independent nation. But I think we should still classify this as a micronation. Spongie555 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• There are Otberg. Please support your claims that "there are no Mapuche supporters" and that "it isn't a recognized state", etc. with sources. So far you have done nothing but crying out loud that the infobox didn't look as you wanted, and so adding information that is unfactual. You know. Diego Grez (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's on you to prove this state was a recognized state ever. But if you like to push up a hoax-article once again, go forward. --Otberg (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What does this, from the lead, mean? No states officially recognized the Araucanía and Patagonia, but the kingdom, nox exiled in France, still stands today. I assume nox is a typo for now, but a kingdom can't be exiled. Only a king.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Support" is perhaps not the right word. It looks like it is an important part of their history in that it was a serious attempt to secure a state for the Mapuche in a world where an imitation european constitutional monarchy was a good bet for recognition. Nice try Oreile. That doesn't necessarily mean they would want some French wine salesman as a king now. I think you are reading too much into what few sources you have. If this state was ever formally recognised by any other state there should be sources that say so, somewhere.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed this nonsense already, but someone reverted it ;-) --Otberg (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the site reached through the Mapuche portal, there are some sources as it says After its constitutional monarchy had been formally established, the Mapuche nation sought international support and recognition. According to several researchers, Great Britain, Italy, France, Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay appear to have formally recognised the Kingdom’s independence (Brazil and Persia evidenced de facto recognition). Somebody could contact the site and ask them what sources they are using.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the "Kingdom" was not recognised, in spite of things some POV-Websites are telling. --Otberg (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I've e-mailed them at the website to ask them to identify any publshed sources on this point supporting their claim so we'll soon know.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard back from the e-mail contact given at the website. In the meantime, please don't edit-war people.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This really is a joke

Really, claim that this Kingdom exist is insane...one man, me for example, go tomorrow to Paris...and say: Paris is the capital of my Kingdom, the Kingdom of Bolivia and France...and that is considered like true??? If this man be a mapuche nobody say that this Kingdom really exist, really is a insult to every Mapuche in this earth...--186.62.132.131 (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

More fun

Hi there. I just reverted a change in German wiki – Stanislas does not really seem to be prince. It rather is a joke within the joke, so to say. If somebody wants to check it – I did. It's at least fun reading the documents. Find the respective links in the German version. Royal regards, Me I., prince of Wordland, archduke of Spellingham. Or so. --Andras Corvi (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

LOL --Otberg (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The original page

Hello, Would you please restore the original version of this page before vandalism? The page online is not the original one but a vandalised one. Thanks a lot.Vulson (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Done --Otberg (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree on that: it seems that there are currently two factions claiming to be Prince Phillipe's succesor. See this article. I'm against including either of them in that list until we gather further independent material. Both [2] and [3] are WP:PRIMARY sources, with an interest in the outcome. --Langus (t) 22:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are two factions. There is just a fake with Stanislas Parvulesco as Stanislas I. Thats why I blocked the German article for IPs. --Otberg (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Araucanía and Patagonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326193355/http://www.cecoch.cl/docs/pdf/revista_ano3_2/revista_ano3_2_11.pdf to http://www.cecoch.cl/docs/pdf/revista_ano3_2/revista_ano3_2_11.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)