Jump to content

Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Ruse That Roared, Washington Post

[edit]

Much, but not all, of this Washington Post article is reproduced on the Quatloos page on DoM; that can be treated as reliable. For information only, I include an unreliable source (hosted on the Dominion of Melchizedek's site and which has been altered by them, with the addition of bracketed comments): link to the waybacked copy. Bromley86 (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles not currently used

[edit]

South China Post

"Fantasy Island", CBS

Bromley86 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Official website

[edit]

Just a heads-up for any other editors who are tempted to add information that's taken directly from, and supported by a cite to, the official website: it's not a reliable source. If you want to add information, you'll need to find a nice, reliable secondary source, which is most likely to be a news article or something like Quatloos that's been accepted over on WP:RSN. Court documents will do, at a push (there's an argument that, if it hasn't been reported elsewhere, it's not weighty enough to merit inclusion, and there are possible BLP aspects when linking to court documents).

Obviously, there's no problem with including the single link to the official website in the Ex Links section. Again though, that link really should be to www.melchizedek.com, even if it's apparent that it's changed. The reason is, we have reliable secondary sources that state that's the right site (Quatloos[1] and Global Pirates: Fraud in the Offshore Insurance Industry[2]) and, with a scam that exists purely on the web, we really do need a reliable source for this. Bromley86 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively recent activity involving DoM companies

[edit]

It's possible that the Ronald Allen convicted of insurance fraud in 2010 was related to DoM. Certainly, Cliffview Pilot says so.[3] Not sure if they're reliable, and they don't really make a decent case, so I've not added it to the article.

A detailed summary of DoM c.2008, linked to by someone heavily involved in Quatloos, can be found here. I've not evaluated it for reliability, but it may have some useful stuff in it. Bromley86 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppets

[edit]

Just a reminder...

Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision Davidpdx (talk)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Dominion of Melchizedek. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias of Editors

[edit]

Bromley86 is a contributor and an editor of this page who continually changes information back to his original edits without due respect for a realistic analysis of the current Status of the Dominion of Melchizedek. This page has been skewed and bias for many years and only purports negative information on the state from over 10 years (ago as of 2016).

There is no new information about the current administration of the Dominion of Melchizedek under Prime Minister David Williams and other Members of the Body-Politic, their positive activities in humanitarian efforts, or the removal of all former members; including the Founder's who turned over all title, claim, and right to the Dominion of Melchizedek.

Further, this particular user and editor of the page has shown he is not competent in his understanding of International law, the Law of Nations, or the proceedure of Nation States in the recognition of foreign States. This is evident in the fact that he/she sources "Quatloos", the Security and Exchange Commission and the Comptroller of the United States in their comments about the current status of recognition of the Dominion of Melchizedek. Those departments/entities have no authority to determine the Status of any foreign State. Such powers reside exclusively with the State Department of the United States and similar high offices of other States.

Finally, the major source used, Quatloos has dozens of missing or dead links. To use Quatloos as the sole source of relevant, up to date, and fair analysis of a State is bias and arbitrary.

This is one way the introduction could read... It could be amended, however, the current introduction is not fact, unsupported, and should not stand if this page is going to be reflected fairly and properly.

"The Dominion of Melchizedek (DoM), Is a micronation formed in the 1990's and has undergone major transformations as the current Members continue to learn, understand, and apply international law so the State can effectively and peacefully co-exist among the Family of Nations. Former Members of the Society, including the founders have been removed by the current Members of the Body-Politic and although there have been reports of fraud perpetrated by the Dominion of Melchizedek in the 90's and early 2000's, there has been no such reports since 2012 under the current administration of the DoM."

Bssmith117 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly adding a section to the lead which is both a promotional whitewash, and unsourced. You clearly have some COI with the subject of this article: your editing history spans several years, with no other edits. Just what is your connection to this group? Are you aware that WP sourcing policy applies equally to editors with "inside knowledge", and the rest of us. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What aspects of the introduction do you consider "Promotional whitewash" and "Unsourced"? The Micronation was formed in the 90's (recognized that is), The removal of the founder of the Dominion of Melchizedek is sourced on the States Website, if you can find any allegations of fraud or illegalities of the State since 2012, then that particular statement would be proven false I suppose. The Statement about the current Members continuing to learn, understand, and apply international law to peacefully co-exist is based on learning and knowing the mindset of the current Head of State of the Dominion of Melchizedek, Prime Minister David Williams. His information is readily available on-line.
As for "Promotional Whitewashing" and "Unsourced" content in the lead, there is no proof which substantiates the current lead on this page. I have attempted to find where this statement is made in the Quatloos article cited. There is nothing of the sort. Two wrongs do not make a right. If you can proof that the statements made by me in the lead are in error, by all means, it should be updated to reflect the facts. Just as the current lead should be updated to reflect the facts. Accusations can go both ways, which is why it is important to stick with facts and reliable sources. Bssmith117 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that, per the manual of style, the lede should introduce and briefly summarize the article. As it currently stands it does that quite well, and there is no need to defend any of the charges within the lede.
If there is consensus that we need to defend against some of the charges of fraud, or soften their blow, let's find independent reliable sources on that topic and write a new section about the current administration of the DoM, since 2012. Bradv 17:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please Note, per The manual of style, "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read". You state, the introduction does a good job with introducing the facts presented on the page, however, nowhere in the article does it state that 1) the individuals charged where not charged as Members of the Dominion of Melchizedek but rather, All individuals charged with fraud or other such criminal activities were charges as US Citizens (as they should be since those individuals were, in fact, US Citizens because they never properly naturalized into the State per the procedures laid out by the United States or international conventions. 2). The introduction is misleading because nowhere in the article cited does it make the statement which is being made in the introduction. Further, Quatloos is not an authority on which States/Societies are considered recognized or unrecognized. Quatloos is a website, not a government or an agent of the US Government or any government, regardless if they purport to be attorneys. Likewise, Other sources such as the Security and Exchange Commission and the Comptroller of the United States have no authority to determine whether or not a State has recognition or exist. Per the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (Article 3) (which the US is signatory to); "The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition, the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence" 4). The Dominion of Melchizedek has been recognized by multiple countries, some of which is even cited within this page.
″According to the Washington Post, the Central African Republic extended diplomatic recognition to the DoM in 1993, but the Post article went on to remark, "...you get the feeling that the Central African Republic would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."[4] An article in the Quatloos! the online anti-fraud site noted that: "Melchizedek has apparently obtained some sort of recognition from some smaller states ... all of which are notable for their corruption. Claims that the DoM has received recognition from any major government are pure lies.″
The Washington Post was correct in its reporting that the Central African Republic extended Diplomatic Recognition to the DoM, Everything else is an opinion of the editor of the Washington Post and the editors of this page. More importantly and to the point, those comments have no bearing on the political relationship between the two States. Further, the statements credited to Quatloos is also an opinion. The Fact is that the DoM has been recognized in various capacities by various states and yet, the introduction still leads with the statement that the Dominion of Melchizedek is "unilaterally declared, internationally unrecognized micronation" (which "unrecognized" is spelled incorrectly).
As for writing a new section about the current administration, That is preferable. However, this requires the willingness of the editors and monitors of this page to be willing to address the bias and double-minded opinions being perpetrated on the entire page and to update the entire page to reflect a more neutral and accurate history of the Dominion of Melchizedek (a video recorded history of the DoM by the two longest Members of the DoM can be found on its Official Website under the notice section). The fact is, that the Dominion of Melchizedek is recognized and since the current Head of State, David Williams has taken over the State in 2012, there has been no reports of fraud, deception, nefarious activities or the like. This should be addressed in the introduction if a reader is going to get a full picture of the micro-state and its current activities in the international community.
As for providing a reliable source, what do you suggest? Are letters from foreign Governments thanking the Head of State of the DoM for their assistance during a health crisis considered an independent and reliable source of information? How about the many websites, interviews, and articles that speak about David Williams and his years of educating individuals in the area of international law and the principle of the Right of Self-Determination? When you are not actively out seeking press, but focused on building a State, where do you find a reliable source? The website of the Dominion of Melchizedek is not considered a reliable source, yet I wonder how many other official government websites are likewise considered unreliable sources! Bssmith117 (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't focus too much on the lede. As I mentioned, it is meant to summarize the article, and to do it well. We can't add any content into the lede that does not already exist in the article.
If you feel that there is a side to this that is misunderstood or underrepresented, gather some sources and put together a draft section. No, the government slash website of DoM is not considered a reliable source, but if what you say is true then there should be newspapers or books that portray the DoM in a positive light since 2012.
On the other hand, if such sources are unavailable, then it will be impossible to write such a section. In that case the article will likely remain as it is, a fairly accurate summary of the sources that are available. Bradv 19:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say "I wouldn't focus too much on the lede". umm, the lede is the most important part! Why wouldn't I focus on it? Did you actually read my response? The DoM has been recognized. Yet the lead, as well as other information inaccurately reports the opposite. The section under recognition even states the DoM has been recognized not only by the Central African Republic but other smaller states! This makes the lede inaccurate; not to mention double-minded and contrary to the facts presented within the article itself!
When you say "fairly accurate", in whose opinion? I have been accused of having a POV conflict of interest, yet "fairly accurate" means nothing. Something is either accurate or it is not. With regards to recognition, I have added many links from various documents provided by foreign governments to the Dominion of Melchizedek on Treaties of Peace and Recognition, however, Those links are always taken down and I am told they are not reliable sources simply because those documents are housed on the DoM's website.
The problem, at the end of the day, is simple. The editors of this page and the public at large are highly ignorant of international law, the Law of Nations, and how this Planet actually operates. It is not understood how Nations recognize other nations or who in a government has the authority to take such action, most people have never heard of the right of self-determination or actually exercised said right, and most are completely ignorant of their own history. This page paints the Dominion of Melchizedek in a purely negative light. It does not keep the third party sources of foreign government documents when added. It does not keep in mind that all nations/states/societies all have had checkered past, including the United States. The Founders had to fight a war. They had to borrow money and go into debt. They had to trade and get recognition from the pirates in the beginning because they couldn't get recognition from the more notable states at that time (barbary treaties). Heck, they had to completely reform their Government because the Articles of Confederation was a complete failure. This is just the facts because creating a new society is not an easy thing to do. People make mistakes just like Societies do.
You can find documents from the DoM's website which provide sources of foreign governments recognizing the DoM. You can find Letters from Liberia as late as February of 2015 thanking the DoM for helping during a national crisis. These documents, whether Wikipedia wishes to acknowledge them or not, clearly show that 1) the State is recognized as a separate state by other governments, 2) the state is very much real, not a fantasy, nor an online phenomenon, and 3) the lack of news on the DoM and its activities is proof that the state, under its current administration is not involved in any activity which would cause government agents to go after its members or peak the interest of the media. It is well known that negative news is the best form of news and positive news is boring news.
At the end of the day, these dialogues contribute to the public record of the State doing what it can to correct the misinformation and the skewed bias nature of the Wikipedia page known as the Dominion of Melchizedek. I am still waiting for proper answers to the questions I have put forth over the past couple of years and still waiting to see who, as an editor on this page, actually have the credentials to discuss international matters with regards to self-determination and the recognition of states/societies.
@bradv, How much of the material, sources, and factual truths provided by the various sources which contribute to the contents of this page have you personally gone through and vetted? Bssmith117 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Wikipedia's job to decide international policy, and it is not the job of individual editors to argue about international policy. It is our job to go through reliable sources, summarize them, and gather the sources together into an encyclopedia.
From the statements you have made here and on your talk page, I'm beginning to think you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. You are here to promote the Dominion of Melchizedek, and convince people that it is a real country.
It is not, and even if we say it is on Wikipedia, it still won't be. Bradv 20:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for Bradv, but in my case 100% of the existing cites and can state that they accurately support the points made in the article. I've also had a quick look, for the purposes of this discussion, at DoM's mentions in the online press 2012 onwards:
So there's no ability to add anything about the current activities of DoM as, at best, it's morphed from an entity notable for being involved in scams to a non-notable entity. That morphing, should it be the case, does not mean the article needs to be deleted, as the historical situation is still notable. Bromley86 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, you mention "it is not the job of Wikipedia or the editors to decide international policy" I agree one hundred percent. You nor this site, have that authority or knowledge base to make such determinations (it is evident in your responses). Yet, almost immediately after your statement you follow up by making an assumption on international policy by assuming the State doesn't exist, which is an opinion not substantiated by any reliable and verifiable source. This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and procedures! You don't have the right to voice your opinion. You only have the permission to add verifiable information.
Furthermore, you are making assumptions and presumptions to my motives for engaging in the correction of facts and verifiable information presented on this page. You have proven, based on your off hand comments that you do not have a neutral point of view on this page because you keep interjecting your bias assumptions and opinons. I have maintain one firm position which is that the lede to this page is unverifiable and inaccurate not only because of the source that was cited, but because of the source presented within this article by other editors which state that a "reliable" source; Washington Post, indeed adminted that the DoM has received diplomatic recognition. Regardless of the opinion of the editor of the article sourced about the reasons the Central African Republic or any other state would engage in recognizing the DoM (diplomatically or otherwise), this is a factual event. Two facts are verifiable as cited in my previous response on the Rights and Duties of States..."The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition, the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence". This is international law and is agreed to by all states. Furthermore, Article 6 of the same International treaty states "recognition is unconditional and irrevocable". I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty straight forward and specific to me. Considering the State has received communications from a foreign Government as late as February of 2015, and considering there are numerous documents from other states engaging in Treaties of Peace and Recognition, your comment that the state "still wouldn't exist" or any editors comment that the State is unrecognized is a complete lie! It is something you want to believe but does not fit the reality at hand.
You can make whatever statement of assumption you wish about my motives, but it should be clear to any neutral party that reviews this dialogue, I am pointing my responses and my focus of facts presented on this page with third party source material that Your Government and every other Government know, understand, and abide by. I am also pointing out violations of Wikipedias own policies regarding verifiable sources. "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.".
@Bromley86 - This also includes @Bradv; Just because someone writes and article and they are considered third-party from the Subject of the page and Wikipedia, does not mean that the Source is accurate in what they present. Bromley86, you cited numerous articles that were posted after 2012, yet all these articles merely mention the name Dominion of Melchizedek! Seriously,
your first Article references a woman who has had no affliation with the DoM prior to 2006. Anything she has done personally, does not automatically tie to the State! Who knows why this particular individual decided to write this article in 2013, 3 years after the event allegedly occured?
Your Second article is a blogger who decided to write a historical peice on other micronations because of an indivdiual trying to claim a track of land for his daughter! (more than likely her source for the DoM was this page). It is a one paragraph, mentioning facts she found interesting!
Your Third article has got to be a joke if you are including this as a reliable source. The only mention of the Dominion of Melchizedek is the fact that this man "Alleged to have ties to the Dominion of Melchizedek". Ok. People alleged things all the time. Doesn't mean they are true! That is why in a court of law, allegations must be verified by facts!
Your Fourth article again has only a mere mention of the Dominion of Melchizedek in relation to a group attempting to exercise its right of Self-Determination, unfortunately, they are following the path of the DoM early on which is the lack of understanding "naturalization of citizens".
Your Fifth article only has this mention "scams (like the Dominion of Melchizedek, which sold fake passports at inflated prices)". Of course, this allegation is address in the history of the DoM put out by the State itself. The man who was arrested for creating fake passports was not only caught creating fake passports for the DoM but multiple nations. He was not a "member" of the DoM nor any other state he was selling passports of! Criminals don't care about things like that! There are thousands of people who sell fake passports of any state to any person dumb enough to pay for them.
Your Sixth article only states this..." In addition, he is said to have shares of a fictional bank in the "Dominion of Melchizedek" ok. where is that proof? Again, people can and will say anything. Just because something is said, does not make it true.
Your final two articles 7 mentions the DoM in passing and 8 is a link that goes to a subsription page which is a violation of wikipedias external link policy..notabley number 6.
Bottom line is that I keep hearing about reliable sources, crediable sources. yet you present these articles which are a joke at best. If anything, it shows that people who write about microstates will continue to write about the Dominion of Melchizedek based on its history because they have no other information to go by. By and large, it is due to the information on this page since anytime someone hears about the Dominion of Melchizedek, they will look it up on Wikipedia.
I see you took the citation down off the lede. That is the first step. however, per the policies on Wikipedia and lede to pages, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." As the Lede stands, it is one blanket statement that has no verifiable source. The lede should also "Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.". Since there is no reliable, published source verifying the lede, it stands to reason, it must be changed and updated to reflect an accurate discription of the topic at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bssmith117 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't providing them as references in articles, merely pointing out that there's been no mention in news sources of the DoM in a manner which would support the sorts of changes that you would like to make. Thank you for making my point in detail!
Regarding the Lead, it's fine as it is:
  • The Dominion of Melchizedek (DoM), is a unilaterally declared, internationally unrecognised micronation - all mentioned in the Body and referenced, with the exception of the actual word "micronation". I'll have a look at making sure that's in somewhere.
  • known for facilitating large scale banking fraud in many parts of the world during the 1990s and early 2000s - again, covered in the body and reffed, although I see none of our current refs/points relate to the naughties, so I'll remove that part. Bromley86 (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud

[edit]

Just visited DOM's website. A purported "photograph of Melchizedek" looks like an island in Fiji! (Cannot identify which one it is — but I'll try to find out) David Cannon (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski Redux

[edit]

It appears once again Johnski and his meatpuppets have started to push their propaganda on the DOM article. Please be aware this went through arbitration many years ago and the result was the banning of of Johnski and ALL of his known meatpuppets. This page can be semi-protected by an administrator and new meatpuppets can be banned. Davidpdx (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I'm not sure what you mean. Davidpdx (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these "meatpuppet edits"? Who is "Johnski"? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are the edits being done by unregistered users. Johnski was (is) someone who is directly involved in DOM who along with other people are making a concerted effort to add unsubstantiated claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision Davidpdx (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominion_of_Melchizedek&oldid=1208979550"