Talk:Republic of Minerva

External Links

I have corrected the edited the "promotional information" to correctly reflect the current history concerning the Minerva topic. Whether it is liked or not (not saying that I do), the "Principality" has demonstrated serious intention, and has exercised authority against Minerva "spoofs." Further, this latest project has been featured in various print and broadcast publications that are not affiliated with them directly, providing some measure of reference. If it was simply made up, that'd be one thing, but this group has been around for some years and has been published several times. 68.143.5.138 15:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC) III

I have restored the link Minervan Coin maliciously deleted by Gzornenplatz. The URL links to a website owned and managed by me that is recognised and widely cited by numismatic groups and publishers, including the publisher of Australasian Coin and Banknote Review Magazine (Aust) and Krause Publications (US), publishers of Unusual World Coins as representing the only comprehensive online source of information concerning the 1973 coin issue by Minerva. The link is obviously relevant to this article.--Gene_poole 00:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I put that link in not knowing it had anything to do with Gene Poole, I just came across it using Google. So its removal was unintentional vandalism. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think if you look at the derogatory comment Gzornenplatz appended to his/her link removal attempt you will see that that it constituted deliberate vandalism. --Gene_poole 12:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The link is inappropriate (see Talk:Hutt River Province) even if in this case it wasn't Gene Poole who put it in originally. How such an inclusion dispute would be vandalism, intentional or otherwise, remains for you to explain. Gzornenplatz 12:33, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

My father was involved in the Republic of Minerva project, and I will try to find out any additional information I can to add on. Tony Jonick

I am extremely disappointed to see that that genuine, verifiable information regarding the "Principality" and its recent activities was arbitrarily deleted, and that searches for the "Principality" are now diverted back to the of "Republic" page (with its silly numismatic disputes). To add insult to injury, the modifier(s?) then alleged some sort of "fraud". If any "fraud" was committed, it was perpetrated by those (vandals? censors?) who removed the fair and non-biassed information about the Principality, and also redirected the "Principality" page incorrectly back to the "Republic" page.

Previously, I had relied on Wikipedia as a valid source for information (for my research and radio commentary, etc. as well as for personal use). What I have learned from this experience is that, in certain areas (such as current events and foreign affairs), Wikipedia probably should no longer be considered a reliable source for unbiased information, since valid contributions can easily be removed by those who have more time to monitor and control what remains there. Anyone with "too much time on their hands" can easily distort or suppress what 'e does not like; ergo, subjectivity triumphs over objectivity, and Wikipedia becomes useles for any topic about which there may be controversy (or axes to grind!)

Having more important things to do than pepetually lurk (and fight those who remove valid additions), I don't expect to monitor this "discussion". However, I would welcome any serious comments/arguments via email to me at "mailto:bam@wusb.fm" . Tripodics 04:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Promotional insertions

Would the person currently adding unverifiable promotional information to this artice stop doing so. At best "Prince Calvin" is a tiny footnote to the story of Minerva, and his "claim" cannot be either verified or enforced. He is also not the only current non-Tongan/Fijian "claimant" to Minerva. The flag also not the correct historic flag, and seems to be a recent concoction. --Gene_poole 22:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am adding the most recent information that is available and is, as per posted media references, verifiable. At the least, the Principality project is relavent simply because it is the most recent and strongest group to make a claim. Yes, there have been others, and the Principality has actually injoined some of those groups against use of the name. Which other group has a claim as strong as these people? The matter of legality and right or wrong as it concerns actual possession and matters of international law is up to courts to decide, not us. In addition to media reference and recognition, the Principality retains a pending US service mark on the name. All of that information is verifiable. As per your standard, Gene Pool, you require 2 print sources, and this group meets the standard. Allow the information to be heard, whether you agree with it or not. Not that I necessarily agree with these guys, but it is relavent. Thanks. 68.59.43.124 22:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC) III

The "principality group" is not the most recent claimant, and until such time as they do more than write about themselves in Wikipedia their claim effectively has no more nor less substance than those of any other claimant. The media reports serve only to verify the group's existence - not confirm its claims. Unless further sources come to light we must assume that the "principality" is basically a website run by a 20-year-old US university student - because that is the only information in the public domain on the subject. --Gene_poole 01:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct in asserting that the Principality group is not the most recent claimant, however I would venture to say that it is the most consistent and well grounded - they even possess a letter from Mr. Oliver stating his desire to no longer be affiliated. That seems to be pretty strong evidence, evidence that can be obtained simply for the asking. You are correct, media sources verify the groups existance - the main bone of contention thus far. So from now on we shall consider their existance verified. As far as sources confirming claim, that is an issue to be decided by greater international bodies, such as the ICJ. When those organizations render a judgement of one manner or another, then the group's "claim" can be "confirmed." We have no obligation, authority or capacity to render whether a claim can be confirmed, as it is a question of international law. Any issue beyond than that, such as whether the group is to be taken seriously or to be brushed off as "some 20-year-old university student that has set up a website" should be a decision made by the reader, not us. Where does it state the age of the leader, anyways? I've seen no date. But the fact that the group has taken it this far for this long is of some marginal value. Thanks for the discussion! 68.59.43.124 03:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC) III

Please explain how adding recent and verified, as we have established previously, is vandalism. On the contrary, you are the vandal, as you are restricting free access to real, verified information to suit your own view. That is the true vandalism. 68.59.43.124 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)III

Verifiability

I distinctly recall reading some months ago a news report on the Minerva "principality's" website about "Prince Calvin" celebrating his 20th birthday. This reference has now, strangely, disappeared. This leaves us with almost no verifiable information about the "principality", leaving us to assume that it is largely, if not wholly, an ephemeral online project. --Gene_poole 21:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been researching the subject of micronations for over the past semester for a sociology thesis. To be precise, according to my research, he's 25, not that it matters - age assertions seems to be unverifiable. There is quite a bit of information out there, but it seems to be of no real concern here - all it takes is a little active research. So I guess we'll just chalk the whole phenomenon up to some sap getting online kicks, like so many other online micronational movements without legitimate territory.Minervan 21:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been researching the subject for over 2 decades, and I'm very familiar with people who make ludicrous claims that are unsupported by such troublesome details as hard evidence. It goes with the territory. Until sources showing something more about the "principality" that the fact that it exists emerge, we must assume it is an ephemeral creation. --Gene_poole 01:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Simply define your standards. What would actually be good enough, and why is it good enough, and how is that standard fair? Thats all I want to know. Minervan 04:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"My standards" are not the issue here, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Statements can either be supported by verifiable third party sources or they can't. In this case, they can't. --Gene_poole 05:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There are verifiable third party sources for the Principality, about which you said "The media reports serve only to verify the group's existence - not confirm its claims." You are, without doubt, exactly right. The only way that they can "confirm claims" is through international arbitration (assuming Tonga abides) or to fight a war over it. Minervan 14:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There is one verifiable third party source for the "Principality of Minerva", which tells us that some sort of entity, or person using that name exists. There is no way of verifying anything else at all about it. Even the "principality's" own website - which is the only other source of information - says nothing of value on the subject. There is no list of official contacts, no location details, postal address or phone numbers, no full names of alleged members and no photographs of alleged members and/or their aleged activities. This strongly suggests that the "principality" is largely ephemeral. --Gene_poole 22:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Photo

This article really needs a photo of the 'island', not least to prove that it actually exists. Can anyone provide a picture please? --kingboyk 22:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• You could get permission to use this photo: http://www.minervanet.org/minerva/images/official_03.gif

Why? What's it a photograph of? --Gene_poole 03:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• • It's a picture of the island of Minerva. This is an article about it, why shouldn't there be a picture of it?

Is there some proof of this claim? --Gene_poole 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering several ships have wrecked on the reef and islets, it would seem to be real. As far as the picture being real, has anyone asked?

What on earth is the above sentence supposed to mean? Could we have an English translation please? Aside from that, the picture in question seems to have been removed from the Minerva website, so it's probably a moot point. --Gene_poole 23:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume that the above sentence is addressing two points. The first question of "...prove that it actually exists" is addressed in the statement, "several ships have wrecked on the reef..."; the statement then addresses whether or not the image has been verified with the website as being of the area or not. Hope that suffices as a decent translation. -- wiki user

---

Minerva Reefs

Group of people walking on Minerva.

More people walking on Minerva.

There are several photos at:

http://www.svsequoia.com/minerva_reef.htm

This wide one is rather nice: http://www.svsequoia.com/PA290007.JPG

These are sort of silly, but show people actually walking on LAND:

http://www.svsequoia.com/PA300013.JPG

http://www.svsequoia.com/PA300012.JPG

(I emailed the website owner, asking permission to use on Wiki, GFDL, etc.) Tripodics 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My request for permission resulted in the following email reply:

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 09:25:56 -0700
From: Barbara Johnston <k7cej@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Permission to use images on Wikipedia
In-reply-to: <46CDD0CF.30609@optonline.net>
X-Originating-IP: [71.236.209.63]
X-Sender: k7cej@hotmail.com
To: bam@tripodics.com

You are welcome to use my pictures with this license:  
  Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

However, you should be aware that many of the pictures on 
the Minerva Reef web page were actually taken (and owned by) 
Barbara Bates and Reggie Good.  (I think they are well identified).  
If you like, I will forward your request to them.

-- Barbara Johnston 

I'm not sure how to proceed. Can someone give me guidance?

Is this sufficient permission. If not, then what is needed. (I asked her to forward my request to the others.)

Tripodics 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Size of the island

Does anyone know how large the island is?

North Reef diameter of about 3.5 miles, South Reef diameter of about 3 miles Much of the reef is at or close to sea-level, often submerged at high tide. I think the actual "land" area is just a few acres, mostly around the perimiter of the large lagoons. However the potential developers (both past and present)plan(ned) to increase that substantially, with land fill and structural materials, so as to to have hotels, casinos, businesss, etc. in addition to docks and marinas.

Tripodics 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The plan was for the formation of a 160 hectare island on the reef. (69)

(That's approximately 450 acres!)

Reference: (69) L Horn, "To Be or Not to Be: The Republic of Minerva – Nation-founding by Individuals" (1973) 12 Columbia J of Transnational L 520, 521.

Found at http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Tax.htm

Tripodics 21:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Fraud

"The Principality" is a fraud, I spoke to a "representative" from the website the other day, he told me that Michael Oliver is "old and tired" and "just wants to live out the rest of his days in peace". He told me that he said that they can "do what they want with Minerva", but how is this so? I read a recent interview on Michael Oliver that contradicts what was said to me, he is still trying to start soverign nations in the pacific, therefore the "Principality" is nothing but a sham as ar as I'm concerned. Source

"The Principality" makes Mr. Michael Oliver seem like a frail old man that just wants peace for the rest of his days as stated on their website, but take a look at this, an explicit contradiction! Let's take their website off, nothing but a fraud, and the "Prince" celebrating his 20th birthday is laughable, I saw it as well, but it was removed for some reason.

It's a libertarian project, not about any "Principality", he is just a sham looking for attention. I have a Yahoo! Group setup for the REAL Republic of Minerva, I don't *claim* to be anything, but yes, I am launching a website soon that will represent The Republic, will also solicit new citizenry, and will conduct diplomacy with other micronations.

It's currently being coded by a team of webdesigners I hired, I hope to finally overshadow these scam artists with the real movement, I plan on resurrecting what the *real* Minerva was about, it was about libertarianism, it was about freedom, it was about no taxation, not about any "Principality" sham.

The government will be as small as possible to run efficiently as possible, we will find the old citizenry so that they can join go help out, we will essentially recreate what was lost back in 1972 and 1982, or it might end up being another thing entirely as nations do change, but I know it won't ever be a "Principality", that is almost the *opposite* that Michael Oliver envisioned from a libertarian paradise.

Let's create a separate article for them, "Minerva Resurrectionist Groups", they don't even have a government, they don't accept citizenry, so they don't fit the definition of a micronation in the first place. Crud3w4re 06:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

How are your opinions more weighty than theirs? If they say that's what Oliver told them, and they say they have some letter, why not ask for proof rather than just toss around accusations? I'm all for neutrality here, but this is hardly it. And concerning "citizenry", I asked, and they said that it's simply because of their status, i.e. gov't-in-exile, and that if someone wanted to become a member of the activism campaign that'd be a starting point. But why solicit citizens when you provide no benefit to them, as of yet? And they never claim to be a "micronation" - in fact, they state explicitly that they are not a "micronation" in the contemporary sense of the term, but rather a traditional nation. They seem to have a functional government, as they have representatives in other countries, as well as interaction with other diplomats. Just my observations, anyways.

As to what "Minerva was really about" (paraphrasing), i.e. libertarianism, small government, no taxation, etc., then thats what the Principality seems to encourage as well. I think if one should take the time to read what they have to say rather than cast dispersions, and rather approach talking to these folks with genuine unbias instead of antagonism.

By the way, there is no date on the article you link. So a contradiction is not readily apparent, even in that regard.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.204.229.5 (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

200 mile coastline

Minerva is more than 200 miles away from Tonga. Isn't there a rule that countries can only claim the area up to 200 miles off their coastline? How did that apply here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.144.74 (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Thats part of what seems to be at the heart of this whole "liberation" thing.

From what I understand of international law (and, granted, not very well), Tonga shouldn't have had a legitimate claim over Minerva. If anyone else had a claim to Minerva, it would likely be the United States, since they first discovered and inhabited it. It leads me to wonder why there was no dispute over the claim in any international venue, and how the territorial dispute may play out differently today, especially if the U.N. were involved. Legally, I think perhaps this could be re-examined and the outcome would be different if likely done so. From what I can tell, Tonga made territorial claims that were dubious at best and were so low on the international affairs stage that no one cared nor noticed. That said, the story of Minerva is so bizarre it sounds like fiction almost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.150.152.159 (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

`

It is my understanding that Tonga's claim to the Minerva Reefs is based on the fact that the area has long been regularly frequented by Tongan fishermen, who count it among their traditional fishing grounds. The extension of Tongan sovereignty over the reefs simply formalised that historic cultural association. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Originally known as Nicholson Shoals, they were NOT discovered by the US but by Captain John Nicholson of the London Missionary Society brig Haweis in December 1818 The notice to the world was registered in the 30 January 1819 Sydney Gazette — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.95.151 (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Erosion?

Is it possible that islands have eroded away, so that they are just reefs like they were before 1972? I can't find Minerva on Google Earth and both the pictures at Minerva Reefs make it seem like the land is submerged at high tide. Chuckos 21:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they continue to emerge, both from artificial additions and from natural processes (which brought them above sea level in the first place, thus justifying Oliver's initial claims for a new nation, under International Law). Tripodics 18:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have photographic evidence in support of the above assertions? Exactly where are the "artificial additions" you make reference to? How does a largely-submerged reef "continue to emerge" from the ocean without the aid of either vulcanism or human intervention? How is it possible for a reef which is submerged at high tide to constitute a "new nation" ? --Gene_poole (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

background information

( I hope this stuff is useful. Please advise.

DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF FIJI AND HIS MAJESTY IMMANUEL X, KING OF OURANIA TREATY OF NICHOLSON’S SHOALS (also known as MINERVA REEFS and the cession of said NICHOLSON’S SHOALS (also known as MINERVA REEFS to the REPUBLIC OF FIJI

The REPUBLIC OF FIJI on the one hand, and on the other His Majesty Immanuel X, King of Ourania, resolve for mutual benefit, and to ensure such relations permanently, by means of a definitive peace and security honest friendship, agree on the following articles. ARTICLE I. In view of the following facts: It having been brought to the attention of both high contracting parties that the de jure rights to discovery of Nicholson’s Shoals sometimes also known as Minerva Reefs which were purchased on behalf of the Kingdom of Ourania from the United Kingdom do indeed fall outside the coordinates of the 24 August 1887 proclamation of borders of Tonga limits of 23.5 South and 177 West. Nicholson’s Shoals was charted marked on charts as "Nicholson's Shoals" since discovered in December 1818 by Captain John Nicholson of the London Missionary Society brig Haweis and is located at 23 degrees 55 minutes south to 23.9167 south and 179 degrees.117 minutes west to 179.71 west. All coordinates being outside the 24 August 1887 proclamation of borders of Tonga limits of 23.5 South and 177 West. His Majesty Immanuel X, the King of Ourania cedes de jure legal title to Nicholson’s Shoals aka Minerva Reefs in favor of the Republic of Fiji in return for the consideration of official recognition of the Kingdom of Ourania that whereas so as proof of a desire that encourages it to be founded on principles of justice and the beneficence of close friendship; for the consideration of the Republic of Fiji recognizing the Kingdom of Ourania as a Free, Sovereign and Independent Nation; thereafter upon ratification by the Republic of Fiji, His Majesty, King Immanuel X renounces, both by himself and by his heirs and Successors, to all pretension to the government, property and territorial law of said Nicholson’s Shoals sometimes also known as Minerva Reefs , assigning such to the Republic of Fiji. Article II. The High Contracting parties also agree to proceed as soon as possible to adjust and conclude a trade and navigation treaty, founded on principles of reciprocal advantages for both countries. Article III. The citizens of the Republic of Fiji and the subjects of His Majesty King of Ourania will be considered for the payment of royalties for the fruits, effects and merchandise imported or exported of the territories of the high contracting parties, and under their respective flag, such as those Most Favored Nation, outside of those cases in which, in order to obtain reciprocal profits, agree on mutual concessions that will be in the interest of both countries. Article IV The merchants and other citizens of the Republic of Fiji and the subjects of His Majesty King of Ourania, that are established, trafficked or transit through all or part of the territories of one or other country, they shall enjoy the most perfect security in their persons and property, and shall be all be free of all charge tax or tax which is not paid by the citizens and subjects of the country in which reside; and both with respect to the distribution of taxes, taxes and other charges protection and franchising in the exercise of its industry, and concerning the administration of justice, shall be treated in the same way as the natives of the nation, always subject to the laws, regulations where they reside. Article V The present treaty of peace and friendship has been ratified by His Majesty, Immanuel X the King of Ourania, and will, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.95.151 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Tripodics 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

From The People's Almanac #2 by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace, 1978:

Established in 1972 by a declaration of sovereignty by a group of Californians, the Republic of Minerva has more claim to authenticity than most micronations because it actually has some land, although it disappears at high tide. The republic consists of two coral reefs 17 miles apart in the South Pacific Ocean some 3,400 miles southwest of Honolulu and 915 miles northeast of Auckland, New Zealand. President Morris C. Bud Davis, a former project engineer with North American Rockwell, runs this domain from the living room of his suburban house in Justin, California. Originally the plan was to attract a population of 60,000 to a fancy sea resort, called Sea City, which was to be constructed on the reefs, where residents would have "no taxation, welfare, subsidies, or any form of economic interventionism". Since the main income was to be from the registration of international cargo ships, the Sea City project was dropped as impractical for lack of funds. A ship was, however, purchased to carry sand out to the homeland for "a major landfill project". Minerva also had a political skirmish with the Kingdom of Tonga over ownership of the reefs that nearly led to a war. When Davis made his original claim by building a small stone tower on one reef, with a flasher on it and the Minervan flag (a torch on a blue field), King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV set sail from Tonga 200 miles to the northeast aboard the ship Olovaba with the 100-man strong Tonga Defense Force (recruited from among the prisoners). They tore down the flag and read a Tongan proclamation of sovereignty. Said Davis: "We can't for the life of us understand why the king should suddenly decide he wants the reefs". While Minerva remains uninhabited, the conflict is dormant.

The above was found at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/to_min.html

Full text of the Minerva Constitution is at

http://starshipaurora.com/minerva.html

From http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/18/newfoundlands.php

On 21 June 1972, the world’s heaviest monarch, King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV of Tonga, accompanied by members of the Tonga Defense Force, a convict work detail and a four-piece brass band, set sail from his archipelago kingdom aboard the royal yacht Olovaba. On the king’s stately mind was one thought—the invasion of the Republic of Minerva, located 270 miles to the west of his country’s capital, Nuku'alofa.

Cabinet magazine - Issue 18 Summer 2005 "New Foundlands" by George Pendle

From "Tax and Regulatory Avoidance Through Non-traditional Alternatives to Tax Havens" by Noel Cox, Lecturer in Law, Auckland University of Technology. First published in (2003) 9 New Zealand Business Law Quarterly 10-32. (As quoted on website http://www.geocities.com/noelcox/Tax.htm )

5 PROBLEMS FOR REEFS OR LOW-TIDE ELEVATIONS

Even if one could not locate an existing island upon which to base one’s financial empire, it might be possible to use a reef or other low-tide elevation, such as ...

It seems unlikely that a state would allow part of its seabed to be used in this way, but it may be possible to find an elevation that is unclaimed, such as the Republic of Minerva. This was based on the Minerva Reef, between Tonga and Fiji, some 1,000 nautical miles north-east of New Zealand.(66) Most of North Minerva Reef is less than two metres high at low tide, and the rest is never more than one metre uncovered. The entire reef is submerged at high tide. South Minerva Reef is completely submerged at high tide, and uncovered at low tide.(67) Unlike the Grand Capri plans, the Reefs were not within the territorial waters of another state – or on its continental shelf – being some hundreds of nautical miles from Tonga, the nearest state. The proposed development of the Minerva Reef was led by the USA-based Ocean Life Research Foundation, and began in 1971.(68) The plan was for the formation of a 160 hectare island on the reef.(69) The developers claimed that their "Republic" was recognised by the Sultanate of Ocussi-Ambeno, East Timor – though the legal status that this recognition would confer was slight, given that the Sultanate was itself not a recognised state.(70) Whilst the constitutive theory of statehood might recognise this as a means of achieving de jure statehood,(71) de facto statehood did not endure (if it ever existed). The brief existence of the "Republic of Minerva" – whether it was ever a state or not – ended with its occupation by Tongan forces.(72) It is likely that further such states would founder due to invasion by the nearest claimant, or simply because of the high cost of development and the uncertainty of a return on investors’ funds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tripodics (talk • contribs) 21:11, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Sections needed?

{{helpme}} I have added sections to the article. (Feel free to rename, revise, reorganize.)
Should the note about sections be removed? (I don't know how to do this, other than deleting it. Is that OK?)
I also uploaded some photos (see above). Is it OK to add these?

Tripodics 18:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

1, yes, you can remove the sections tag. Looks well-organized now. Yes, just delete the tag.

2, The Images are not appropriate for use on wikipedia and should be removed immediately. The license "Owner has given permission for unlimited, non-commercial use" is not ok. Wikipedia requires that all licenses permits derivative copies and commercial use. Wikipedia's software creates derivative copies by default and this website is mirrored by hundreds of commercial websites. Also, the tag you placed on the image " Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" is not what the owner required. It's a very different license. Currently, the way things stand, we are in violation of copyright law.

I"m relay sorry that I'm the bringer of bad news. :( ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone still checking this website?

I have recently (August 2008) graduated from UC Irvine with a B.A. in History (emphasis on Economic and Revolutionary History) and minors in Political Science (emphasis on law and politics) and Art History (emphasis on propaganda). I've also interned in a Beverly Hills Law Firm, but that's enough about me. I have studied Minerva and found out that Tonga has violated the International Waters and Tropic of Capricorn UN Laws; although this didn't matter much in the 1970's, primarily due to the Cold War, such violations are criticized now, and it wouldn't be hard to prove that Tonga violated the post-WWII UN Charter to the UN, considering that Minerva is the only island owned by Tonga that's South of the Tropic of Capricorn. Furthermore the Tongan military attacked a civilian country center, forcing them to surrender at gunpoint, another violation that will be decried by the UN. Anyways, if someone is still checking this website let me know and contact me Ilya_7@yahoo.com

Disclaimer: Since this is a discussion section, not the actual article, and since I am not seeking to profit here, this post cannot be regarded as SPAM according to the Wikipedia Rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.108.173 (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As a student with a B.A. in history, I'd just like to comment on some of the history parts of the article. I will not change anything on the main webpage, until I get at least 3 approvals, and the approvals would be greater then the denials for change. We shall change it Democratically, unlike Florida.... Changes/questions are in (((EX))).

"Minerva was originally discovered in 1852 by a group of American whalers. It was not until 1942-45 that any real occupation came to the island, when U.S. military forces occupied the atolls and islands during the War in the Pacific in World War II.

In 1971, barges loaded with sand arrived from Australia, (((who did the sand come from? Minerva was part of International Waters, so who paid to have the island built in International Waters? Incomplete, needs more info.))) bringing the reef level above the water and allowing construction of a small tower and flag. The Republic of Minerva issued a declaration of independence on 19 January 1972, (((From whom did Miverva declare its Independence? The islands were in International Waters, and last time I checked it wasn't a country. Wouldn't saying something like "established a state in International Waters" be better?))) in letters to neighboring countries and even created their own currency. In February 1972, Morris C. Davis was elected as Provisional President of the Republic of Minerva.

The declaration of independence, however, was greeted with great suspicion by other countries in the area. A conference of the neighboring states (Australia, New Zealand, Tonga, Fiji, Nauru, Western Samoa, Cook Islands) met on 24 February 1972 at which Tonga made a claim over the Minerva Reefs.

On 15 June 1972 the following Tongan government gazette was published:

PROCLAMATION His Majesty King Taufaʻahau Tupou IV in Council DOES HEREBY PROCLAIM:- WHEREAS the Reefs known as North Minerva Reef and South Minerva Reef have long served as fishing grounds for the Tongan people and have long been regarded as belonging to the Kingdom of Tonga has now created on these Reefs islands known as Teleki Tokelau and Teleki Tonga; AND WHEREAS it is expedient that we should now confirm the rights of the Kingdom of Tonga to these islands; THEREFORE we do hereby AFFIRM and PROCLAIM that the islands, rocks, reefs, foreshores and waters lying within a radius of twelve miles thereof are part of our Kingdom of Tonga. (((Is Majesty admitting that the Tongan people illegally fished in International Waters? It seems like the declaration wasn't disputed, whereas historically it probably was. People don't generally go to Nowhereland and establish a state there just to GTFO.))) An expedition was sent to claim the land. (((Expeditions don't get sent to reclaim the land. The Military does that, so it should read "a Tongan armed forces detachment was sent to reclaim the land". But the land isn't even being reclaimed considering it was in International Waters. So my final revision would be "A Tongan armed forces detachment was sent to conquer/annex the Minervan Reefs.))) The Republic of Minerva flag was lowered down, and the atoll was later annexed by Tonga. Tonga’s claim was recognized by the South Pacific Forum in September 1972. (((The flag was willingly lowered? This is great, it's like that one guy who comitted suicide by shooting himself with a shotgun 8 times. Flags don't willingly get lowered, it was lowered in an armed standoff, or at gunpoint. Say that in the history, history's supposed to be realistic not nice.))) Meanwhile, Provisional President Davis was fired by founder Michael Oliver and the project collapsed in confusion. Nevertheless, Minerva was referred to in O.T. Nelson's post-apocalyptic children's novel The Girl Who Owned a City, published in 1975, as an example of an invented utopia that the book's protagonists could try to emulate.(((What does the Nelson reference have to do with the history of Minerva again?)))

In 1982, a group of Americans led again by Morris C. “Bud” Davis tried to occupy the reefs, but were forced off by Tongan troops after three weeks. In recent years several groups have allegedly sought to re-establish Minerva. No claimant group has to date made any attempt to take possession of the Minerva Reefs territory. (((Alledgely? Is that really necessary, if so please explain. Also, how did they try to occupy the reefs? With or without weapons. Needs revision.)))

While some groups claim to represent a continuation of the early “republic,” one group promotes itself as a “principality,” operating as a non-hereditary, constitutional monarchy. Founded in October 2003[1], by a Charleston, South Carolina based individual identified on the group’s website as “Prince Calvin,” this group styles itself as a "government in exile" and has engaged in informal diplomatic interactions with government officials of other nations, including the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Guyana. (((If it promotes itself as a principality, there should be no qoutes around the word, as qoutes emphasize that the principality is fake, whereas I strongly doubt that they are promoting themselves as fakes.)))

In November of 2005, Fiji lodged a complaint with the International Seabed Authority concerning territorial claim over Minerva. This may, in turn, affect ongoing issues of maritime borders with New Zealand, which are to be resolved by the United Nations by 2009. Tonga has lodged a counter claim. The Minerva "principality" group also claims to have lodged a counter claim." (((Claims to have lodged a counter-claim? Sounds like the author no likey the Principality and is slightly biased against it. Like it or not, it is part of Minervan history and must be regarded as such.))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.108.173 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 February 2008

Seasteading?

Does this count as seasteading? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Seasteading" appears to be a proprietory term relating to floating concrete structures, so I'd contend that no, it doesn't. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Diagram of position on globe

Does anyone think this article would be better with an appropriate map showing how close this reef is to all local countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.19.55 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how to update this link

I will follow up with this myself if no one else can assist, but the #2 reference here is now offline.  It's archived here https://web.archive.org/web/20130619043045/http://www.impel.com/liblib/NNLFAQ.html but I'm not sure of the correct citing procedure to update it & don't have time at the moment. JamesG5 (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

País de Juca

País De Juca

•Língua Oficial= Português

•Gentílico= Jucense

•Tipo de Governador= Monarquia

•População= 1

•Capital do País= Larry

•Moeda= Cruzeiro

•Continente= América do Sul

Líder de Governador= Rei Junior

Português

Larry 2804:D4B:9D55:9200:F41F:9825:ED76:AD59 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)