Talk:Matthew Island and Hunter Island

Micronation claim

The following text has been repeatedly added by a few editors:

"The Hunter Island is also claimed by the micronation Republic of Lostisland."

Note that some of the editors adding it are largely single-purpose, and the supposed entity in question doesn't even warrant an article on Wikipedia. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

References

However, the Island is claimed by the said micronation, and we do have clear sources to indicate that it does and of course there are pictures of this on the internet. BarnabyJoe (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hunter Island is one of the most remoted and unapproachable pieces of land, and the very fact that somebody arranged an expedition to it is notable and certainly deserves place in the article. Moreover, this seems to be the only expedition to Hunter in modern history, at least Google doesn't give any results other than the link provided in the references list. Mr. Ckatz, everybody knows that you hate micronations and micronationalism, everybody remembers how you deleted the article about Flandrensis five minutes after I created it (without even bothering to reply to my message on your talkpage), but I believe that Wikipedia is not a suitable place to express your hatred and recoup on the quality of the articles, lighting of the facts and therefore, on the entire encyclopedia. Have a nice day. Escargoten (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that Lostisland's achievement deserves recognition here. If you don't like Micronations, Mr. Ckatz, then that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold. However, please refrain from trying to put that forward onto the Internet.

Also, just for your information: Just because it does not have a wikipedia article, does not mean that it is unimportant. St Peters Republic (User talk: St Peters Republic\talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by St Peters Republic (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the claim that I "hate micronations and micronationalism" is a load of rubbish... it reflects poorly on the person who posted it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The reference to Lostisland clearly deserves to be let there. There are sources, photo sources, that Lostisland has actually visited it, so it clearly deserves attention. Cipika (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly see where Ckatz is coming from. I'm a micronationalist myself, but despite this I have to say that the edits made by Escargoten violates http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research, and that's something eligible for reverting. Case in point, you can't research your own micronational website for posting on Wikipedia. AuburnAttack21 (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that since they have been there and have stated numerous times that they claim it, the sentence should be allowed on the page. The sentence said that Lostisland claimed the land, which they do. It doesn't say that "the land is owned by Lostisland", it states that it is claimed by them, which it is. I say keep the statement on the page. CaseyOHamlin (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

that feel when so many micronationalists I know here--OCCullens (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, if somebody thinks more references are needed, you can include this one as well. The world map of micronations, made for the European Journal of Geography, clearly indicates that Hunter Island is claimed by Lostisland. Escargoten (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that several of the commentators here are low-volume accounts with limited scope. That doesn't negate their opinions, of course, but they should be taken in context. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't negate the opinions, there was no reason for writing this your message. Or is it the only justification for deletion you have? Escargoten (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please be logical. Notablity means in wikipedia that it should have reliable sources and random websites and blog aren't. Just because you all are his micronationalist friends, this don't mean you would destroy the rules of wikipedia. Rules are rules. Until it isn't in some reliable source. No matter how great work you did- if not in reliable sources, it wouldn't be in wikipeida. Wikipedia wouldn't be first reliable place to talk about you, it just collect already available data from reliable sources- as simple as that.

--Rawal of Jaisalmer (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What is with the whole references for pages stuff on Wikipedia...--VarickWebbofSpanionte (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read the above comment by Rawal of Jaisalmer. Despite references, the whole thing is simply not notable. Jeff in CA (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You're literally trying to defend your point with appealing to a comment written over half a decade ago, and totally ignoring the sources added afterwards. There's no way you can reasonably say a French book, a national newspaper, a prominent think tank, as well as Hawaii Public Radio are "non notable random websites and blogs". Clearly this is nothing but a show of your personal negative attitude towards micronations and micronationalism in general. --Escargoten (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment on the edits, not the editor.

The sources are not convincing. We have two from Lotusland.org (so, not an independent reliable source), Two others are simply passing mentions, and even worse, appear to be dismissive of the claim. One says "Oh, I almost forgot: Hunter Island is also unofficially claimed by the micronation Republic of Lostisland... the likelihood of it impacting New Caledonian or Ni-Vanuatu claims is nil" and the other calls it a "quixotic effort[s] to establish a tax-free libertarian haven." I do not have access to the 2017 book sourced so I cannot comment on how the claim is covered there. The 2016 Vanuatu Daily Post coverage is interesting and in depth, but again does not take the claim very seriously. The title is "Internet Eccentrics On Expedition To Hunter Island" and points out that the 2012 expedition never actually landed on Hunter Island. It says that the project came out a defunct Russian gaming site and suggests this is an "absurdist satire of contemporary Russian society". For that matter, did the 2016 expedition ever even happen? A source discussing an expedition that had actually happened would be more credible than one talking about a group's claims of what they were going to do. Meters (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that mention of lostisland is totally WP:UNDUE. What secondary source has mentioned the claim as having any significance? Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I never suggested that the expedition landed on Hunter Island, which it did not, the 2012 expedition however did happen and even though they didn’t land on the Island, it was referenced in at least three independent sources all of which are present in Wikipedia as separate articles, meaning they clearly are notable enough. --Escargoten (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

And removed again. Until there is consensus to include this information it should stay out. I've challenged the sources as being inadequate and Johnuniq agrees that this is undue. Meters (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually most users even back in 2012, when none of those sources were available, supported the addition. Is the book an inadequate source too? It has an entire section dedicated to Hunter Island and Lostisland's claim over it, Lostisland furthermore appears in this book, Hunter Island appears as claimed by micronation in this journal, the Japanese and the Esperanto Wikipedias have separate articles about Lostisland. It looks like you're simply willing to censor a reference to micronationalism which you most likely consider "unserious" per definition. --Escargoten (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing your contributions shows your only interest is the promotion of certain claims, since 2012. Some Wikipedia essays provide background on why such activity is not welcome: WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I’m a specialist in micronations, it’s no wonder I contribute with stuff I’m familiar with and last I checked this wasn’t against the rules. As the guy above said – comment on the edits, not the editor.--Escargoten (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I too am interested in micronations. However, they are akin to the activities described at Society for Creative Anachronism#Kingdoms. One doesn't see disruptive edits to articles on the history of the Middle Ages because of them. Jeff in CA (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No offense but if you compare micronations to SCA kingdoms this already points to your lack of competence of the matter, meaning that you shouldn't perhaps edit micronation-related articles at all.--Escargoten (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't edit micronation-related articles. I edit geography-related articles, which this is.Jeff in CA (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, rephrase it as "micronation-related sections". [Personal attack redacted]--Escargoten (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Ho-ho! This is rich! What happened to "no offense"? I agree that mention of lostisland is totally WP:UNDUE. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I consider the sources mentioned in above comments notable enough to deserve a small section in the article. Not sure how exactly the Vanuatu Daily Post is irrelevant or undue in this case(?).DenysTezdzhanenko (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC) — DenysTezdzhanenko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As it is already said, I would like to question again why exactly the sources described wouldn't be acceptable in this very case. There are pictures of sailing, articles in other languages thus public exposure. There's no problem saying a geographic land has a clam by a micronation. Will Sn0w (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — Will Sn0w (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sources are not undue. We said the material in general was undue I gave my analysis of the Vanuatu Daily Post and the other sources above. Meters (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This info should definitely stay on here. In the era of Internet, any major kind of human activity has remarkable online branches, and building states and countries is anything but an exclusion. Wikipedia has articles about such micronations as Principality of Sealand and Republic of Molossia. The sole fact that Vanuatuan media, and even media of some other countries unrelated to these islands (which are really remote and were driven some recognition via Lostisland's statehood), prove that the information is following Wikipedia inclusion standards. Nowadays Lostisland is one of the major powers in the micronational world, so I find it absolutely essential to include the info about Lostisland into this article.--Joél be back (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to know why we are suddenly seeing brand new accounts, or accounts with almost no previous edits suddenly appearing to defend the Lostisland content. DenysTezdzhanenko is a brand new account with zero previous edits, Will Sn0w was created in 2014 but has only made one previous edit, and Joél be back was created in 2014 but has only made 42 previous edits on English Wikipedia and only 3 in the last year. None of the three accounts has previously touched this article or any article concerning micronations. It's not appropriate to support article content because someone has asked (either directly or indirectly). If that's what's happening I suggest the users read WP:SPAPARTY.

As for the material, if Lostisland really is "one of the major powers in the micronational world" then I'm sure there will be no problem creating an article about Lostisland which has sufficient independent, reliable sources to show its notability. Once that's done we can mention the micronation claim here. Until then this joke or satire or "cultural and social project" (as Lostisland's own website describes it) does not belong on this page. Meters (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I notice that one Denis Tezdzhan is listed on Lostisland's website as Prime Minister, suggesting that user:DenysTezdzhanenko either has a conflict of interest or is an impersonation account. Meters (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You're literally suggesting if something doesn't have a separate article on Wikipedia about it, it doesn't deserve a mention at all. Sorry but if this was the case there'd be now sections or subsections on Wikipedia, everything would be in separate articles.--Escargoten (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggested no such general rule, and I didn't imply it either. My statement referred only to this article, any possible article about Lostisland, and inclusion of Lostisland in this article. You incorrectly inferred that my statement was a general rule. Or perhaps since English is not your first language [1] you don't understand what literally means? Meters (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You said "once this [a separate article about Lostisland] is done we can mention the micronation claim [...] until then this [...] doesn't belong on this page". You're suggesting just that, if something doesn't have a separate article it mustn't be mentioned at all and if you're implying this is only the case with Lostisland this is blatant hypocrisy from your part, perhaps you have some sort of problem with this entity.--Escargoten (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I suggested nothing about other articles. Again "My statement referred only to this article, any possible article about Lostisland, and inclusion of Lostisland in this article." You incorrectly inferred something. Meters (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh and to quote yourself, User:Meters - comment on the edits, not the editor.--Escargoten (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning possible SPA or COIs is not a personal attack. It just informs other editors of potential concerns. Meters (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Never said it's a personal attack, you did however suggest the contribution of those editors is untrustworthy because of their few edits and ironically when I suggested that someone is incompetent in micronationalism you did classify it as an attack.--Escargoten (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I simply pointed out SPAs and a possible COI, so that other editors can take it into account when making up their own minds about how much consideration to give those editor's opinions, as I am allowed to do.

That's not what I called a personal attack, which is why it is still on this page. What I did call a personal attack, and redacted, was something entirely different. it. I'm not wasting any more of my time on this. Meters (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A new article on the subject has been released, with this new reference I'm sure there are more than enough sources to merit the inclusion of the section. Escargoten (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC) There's evidently no hope to reach a consensus here, I have no choice but to proceed to dispute resolution. Escargoten (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Proof of Lost Island micronational claim

[2] They have made it to their island! They are planning to sail again in November of 2012. --VarickWebbofSpanionte (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matthew and Hunter Islands. 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/20070311084150/http://www.425dxn.org/dc3mf/matthew.html to http://www.425dxn.org/dc3mf/matthew.html

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) 05:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the Federal Republic of Lostisland claim

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How much mention is the correct weight is the crux here and that can be nothing.

The Hunter Island is claimed by the Federal Republic of Lostisland, a micronation, which in 2012 undertook an expedition to the island. Over the last 6 years a discussion on whether this merits an inclusion to the article has been sporadically going on but no real consensus was ever reached. The independent sources mentioning the claim and/or the micronation are as following:

• "Flashpoint: South Pacific - Vanuatu and New Caledonia". Center for International Maritime Security. 2014-01-16. Retrieved 2017-12-13.
• Conan, Neal. "Pacific News Minute: France, Vanuatu To Discuss Disputed Matthew and Hunter Islands". Retrieved 2017-12-13.
• Histoires insolites des îles désertes françaises. Bruxelles: Editions Jourdan. 2017. ISBN 9782874664526. OCLC 989753471.
• Maidar, Sosorbaram. "Лостайленд выпустил почтовые марки, посвященные Чингисхану". Asia Russia Daily (in Russian). Retrieved 2018-03-08. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
• Cortbus, Colin. "Internet Eccentrics On Expedition To Hunter Island". Vanuatu Daily Post. Retrieved 2017-12-13.
• Scott,, Forbes,. You rule! : create your own country. Jones, Emma (Emma Laura),. Footscray, Victoria. ISBN 174360968X. OCLC 929658248.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Are those sources sufficient to include the micronation reference to the article? Escargoten (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No they are not. The material has been removed as WP:UNDUE, as several editors have recently said (myself, user:Johnuniq and user:Jeff in CA). Other editors have recently removed the material without mentioning UNDUE ( user:OpenToppedBus]], and user:Leodescal so there is no consensus to include it. It appears that the group of online gameplayers behind this have not even made a true micronation claim to the islands. Their website calls it a "cultural and social project" and the group does not claim to be a sovereign state and does not dispute anyone else's sovereignty. Any claim to the islands are symbolic. The quality of the sources is actually nearly irrelevant if the material is UNDUE, but let's look at them again.

The Forbes and Jones ref [3] is useless. It's an e-book for kids on how to design your own nation.

I've previously analyzed the Vanuatu Daily Post article [4]. That's the one that calls them eccentrics and the project itself an "absurdist satire of contemporary Russian society".

There's nothing new in the Asia Russia News blurb, except that they have supposedly issued stamps now. I have no idea how reliable that site is, but the rest of the content is just a rehash of all the same info.

As I said before, I don't have access to the 2017 book [5]. I have no idea what the level of coverage is or how seriously the claim is covered (if at all). Since the ref is only used to source "Hunter Island is symbolically claimed" it is unlikely to add anything to what we have from the other sources. Oh, and a worldcat lising is not a proper citation.

I've previously analyzed the Hawaii public radio mention [6]. The article is actually about the dispute between France and Vanuatu. It only mentions Lostisland in passing, dismissively as "one of those quixotic efforts to establish a tax-free libertarian haven".

I've previously analyzed the Cimsec source [7]. Like the Hawaii radio source, this only mentions Lostisland in passing and dismissively. "Oh, I almost forgot: Hunter Island is also unofficially claimed by the micronation Republic of Lostisland ... the likelihood of it impacting New Caledonian or Ni-Vanuatu claims is nil."

So, a kid's ebook and a web claim that they have published stamps have been added. So what? As I've said in December, I'm OK with including a brief mention of the claim here if the claim is notable enough to warrant a Wikiarticle. Until such an article is created the inclusion of the material in this article is WP:UNDUE,and appears to be an attempt to mention someone's pet project that isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Meters (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sir, I’m seriously starting to suspect that you perhaps have a conflict of interest here, because of the way you word some of your arguments. Are you, by chance, an ex-member of Lostisland who has been removed for one or another reason?

You call them “online gameplayers”. This clearly isn’t the case, they arranged an expedition to this island which already disqualifies them as gameplayers, also if you take a look at their website or facebook page there are plenty of real-life activity going on.

You say the group doesn’t claim to be a sovereign state and doesn’t dispute anyone’s sovereignty. True, and I myself have made it clear in the proposed addition to the article, but what this has to do with notability?

The Forbes and Jones reference you brush away as “useless” because it’s a kids book. Again, how is this relevant? By this logic Postman Pat should he removed, considering he’s a children’s character.

The Vanuatu Daily Post article. You don’t like it because it calls them eccentrics. For real?! Even if they are, since when being eccentric equates to lack of notability?

Asia Russia Daily is reliable enough, it’s a registered Russian newspaper, but it seems like at this point you’d keep on insisting the issue is non-notable even if all the world’s media reported about Lostisland on their frontpage.

The French book has an entire section dedicated to Lostisland and Hunter Island. Do I need to upload a scan of the book for you to believe it or a content description on the editorial’s website would suffice?

The Hawaii Radio article is about France and Vanuatu, indeed, yet for some reason they found it appropriate to include a Lostisland reference – whether dismissively or not is secondary here, it was obviously notable enough to be mentioned on the broadcast.

Same about the Cimsec, if Lostisland is so unnotable, why did they mention it at all? The obvious answer is, because it warrants such mention, which together with the previous sources being supplied is even more obvious. And let’s be honest here, you say that you’d be okay with the mention if a separate article about Lostisland existed – which might I say is a dubious logic, plenty of information on Wikipedia exists in subsections only, without separate articles – yet you’d be the first person to nominate the article for deletion if it was ever created. Escargoten (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• No There are 80 claims at List of micronations and nearly all of them have an article. Some of the cases are reported in the article for the district. For example, Vilnius mentions Užupis. In that case, the latter is small but has decent content. The mentions in the former are tiny compared with the length of the article. By contrast, this RfC concerns Federal Republic of Lostisland which does not exist, and this article which is very small. Any mention here of a stunt would be WP:UNDUE unless a reliable secondary source has written about the significance of the claim. Reports that some people had a yachting holiday and raised a flag for a laugh are not sufficient. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "significance"? Articles claiming that France and Vanuatu are now doomed because of Lostisland? This obviously is not going to happen, yet other micronations who have no more power in terms of defending their claim are somehow mentioned in Wikipedia. Escargoten (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• No. I will feel happier if we are able to get some involvement from experienced users who haven't previously edited this article (Meters, Johnuniq and myself have all done so) but for what it's worth, I agree that mention here would be WP:UNDUE. I have no evidence for this, but my guess would be that at least some of the sources listed have themselves taken their (extremely minimal) info about the Lostisland claim from this very article. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This would be impossible, for the simple reason the Lostisland reference wasn't here when those publications were made. Escargoten (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: Contrary to what many have said, I have looked at these sources and they do seem sufficient enough for a small mention. I do not see how the mentions would be WP:UNDUE as the visit that did occur by the "Lostislandic" delegation was relevant enough to appear in the mention of a national newspaper of one of the claimant country. The three news article and the CIMSEC article seem as reliable sources and the information provided in them is considerably long enough to be significant. I cannot comment on the book-based sources, but books of similar notoriety are used in other articles throughout this wiki so their popularity should not affect their possible relevance as a source. "Lostisland" when compared with other micronational mentions in Wikipedia seem to have a much stronger presence in independent sources. The nature of the micronation should not effect its significance, those saying the micronation may be humorous so it should not be mentioned in the article are not considering this objectively and are unreliable. In conclusion, I think it is significant enough for a small mention within the article. FPSTurkey (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes: These sources are sufficient to warrant an inclusion. I'd be against writing a whole section on it, but a line acknowledging the expedition and Lostisland's claim isn't beyond the reasonable inclusion criteria of Wikipedia. BarnabyJoe (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I might not object to a simple mention of the claim, but I do object to what appears to be a backdoor attempt to, in effect, write an article about Lostisland without having to show its notability in a real article. And User:Escargoten I do not have a COI on this issue, and it is inappropriate for you to suggest that I would "be the first person to nominate the article for deletion if it was ever created." I have no interest in writing an article, but I'd be happy to see an article that showed Lostisland's notability using reliable sources. Why don't you write one? Meters (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you for this clarification, if you don't object to mentioning the claim then I suggest we instead discuss how to word it properly — I presented my version, if you consider it inappropriate let's develop one which would be agreed upon. The reason however I suggested you'll be the first to nominate such article for deletion is quite simple, if you don't consider the existing sources notable enough to merit a section about Lostisland, surely they would be, in your opinion, even less notable for a separate article. Though in all honesty, I myself am not sure the group is notable enough to warrant an article, at least for now — which is why I don't write such article, also from what I can see someone else has already done so in the past and it was speedy deleted. If at least 2-3 more sources about Lostisland appear, I might write the article — for now however I think a mention in this one is sufficient. Escargoten (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
      • No. You started an RFC on whether Lostisland can be mentioned.. Now we have to wait to wait for it to finish. And I don't care how you justify your comments about what I would do if an article were created. It is inappropriate for you to claim to know what I would do. Don't do it again. Meters (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I did, because this is the first time you deny objecting to the mention of Lostisland, and I'd say it is perfectly appropriate to use common sense. Escargoten (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I' don't believe I've ever said anything about an article on Lostisland. I've simply said that I don't believe the material needs to be mentioned in this article. For the third time, it is inappropriate for you to claim to know what I will do. Please redact that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 21:13, March 13, 2018 (UTC)

• Include short mention. I've read through all of the comments and I frankly don'e see the problem with a brief mention based on the reliable sources. The allusions to WP:UNDUE don't make sense to me; that policy is about how we give appropriate weighting to the sources, not about whether we include subject matter at all. Maybe WP:NOTEVERYTHING? But the micronation's claim to the island has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Concerns that this or that editor will use inclusion as a toehold to create a full-blown article really have no place here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman I wasn't suggesting that this would be used as a toehold to create an article. I object to what appears to be an attempt by an SPA to insert the content of a failed article into this article, so, yes, this does have a place in this discussion. I said that I might not objected to a short mention, and by that I mean something along the lines of one or at most two sourced sentences simply saying that it has been symbolically claimed by Lostisland. We don't need a picture, and we don't need to go into details about vague reports that someone was planning a visit two years ago. Meters (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This RfC may be unnecessary then? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The 2016 expedition didn't take place it seems. but the 2012 one did. Why, then, it shouldn't be mentioned? Escargoten (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: (Summoned by bot) Sourcing justifies one or two sentences at end of Hunter Island section. A standalone section and a photo, however, would be UNDUE, at least for now. 'Notability' does not apply to specific content within articles; it applies to the subject of an entire article. Arguments about 'notability' of the micronation, therefore, do not apply to its inclusion in this article; a WP article about Lostisland need not exist for it to be mentioned here, or anywhere in Wikipedia. If the sentence(s) is included, an inline link to Lostisland should not be used (per MOS), as was done previously; it could instead be put in External Links. DonFB (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes: (Summoned by bot) The event is mentioned in relevant reliable sources and a (very) short reference to it would be in accordance with WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Height of Hunter Island

The height of Hunter Island given by this Wikipedia article up to this time was inconsistent within the references given and these were not in line. At the time the height for Hunter Island was introduced no references were given and there is a possibility of circular referencing on the net after 2006. For example the article reported 242 m (794 ft) which is also height given in "OpenStreetMap". Retrieved 7 August 2024. not quoted till added now by me as source usually trusted but "GVP Hunter Island". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. gives currently 297 m (974 ft). Investigation suggested the possibility of circle referencing going on, and that the French who administer and visit the island tend to have different and higher heights that 242m. The initial unreferenced height however could well have a French origin, as it was introduced to the article on 1st November 2006 by an editor with a good command of French who added no references to the article. This editor had started an article on French Wikipedia on 15th October 2006 and introduced the height then unreferenced. A 2023 article Borsa, P.; Baudat–Franceschi, J. (2023). "The marine avifauna of Matthew and Hunter Islands,two remote volcanoes of the New Hebrides chain". Arxius de Miscel·lània Zoològica. 21: 67–89. doi:10.32800/amz.2023.21.0067. had a solid reference for height of East Matthew but gave area of Hunter Island referenced from 2015 French publication which seems to have inaccuracies as to height for both islands, but no reference for the height for Hunter which it reported as 242 m (794 ft). The French 2015 reference Butaud, J.F.; Jacq, F. (2015). "Parc naturel de la mer de Corail: îles Éloignées: guide floristique". Gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Calédonie. gave the height for Hunter as 270 m (890 ft) and Matthew as 195 m (640 ft). A French visit to the island in 2013 gives a height of 280 m (920 ft). A French article from 1982 gives the height of Matthew as 177 m (581 ft) and Hunter as 260 m (850 ft) and notes French official sources likely from mapping in late 1970s.Maillet, P.; Monzier, M. (1982). "Volcanisme et pétrologie des îles Matthew et Hunter: données préliminaires" (PDF). Contribution à l’étude géodynamique du sud-ouest Pacifique. 147. ORSTOM Nouméa: 187–215. Retrieved 7 August 2024. It is interesting that British surveys between 1853 and 1856 gave a survey height of 974 ft (297 m) for Hunter island and for East Matthew island 365 ft (111 m) "South Pacific Ocean : Aneityum and Erronan Is. (New Hebrides) and neighboring islands". UCSanDiego. Retrieved 7 August 2024. which certainly got onto standard maritime charts in the 1900s. Google maps does not actually map the islands although shows them on satellite photos taken in 2024. Apple maps does map both islands but only gives a height for Matthew island. ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)