Talk:Criticism of the GUM
Please read before editing
Listen, due to the nature of the article, I HIGHLY recommend that you discuss any changes you want to make, here before doing so. If you fail to heed this advice, we are not held responsible for the safety of your edit(s). --Guess I never Miss (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Below is some historic criticism from circa 2011 which editors may choose to incorporate. This used to be in the GUM main article but was taken out a few years ago due to being outdated. Obviously adapt accordingly. Unfortunately a lot of the citations are deadlinks so maybe remove those. ADAMVS PRIMVS IMPERATOR 01:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The GUM was subject to criticism from several micronationalists. In more recent times, criticism has come from such people as Gordon Freeman and Heinrich Schneider, mostly about the policies on professionalism held by the GUM. They argued that micronations being constrained or condemned for being non-serious or unprofessional is against their idea of micronationalism being whatever its creators want, pointing to such famous micronations as the Republic of Molossia, one of the most famous and respected micronations in the world, having non-serious characteristics, such as describing themselves as a 'dictatorial banana-republic' and waging war against the defunct state of East Germany since 2 November 1983.
This criticism was refuted by GUM members on multiple occasions, using examples of GUM member states Juclandia counting toys as citizens and Wyvern waging an annual "fireworks war" against the Netherlands - they countered the example of Molossia by pointing out that despite its tongue-in-cheek domestic features it is known for acting very professionally in regards to its interactions with other nations. The GUM attempted to encourage formality in intermicronational relations (something which has been supported by most members of the MicroWiki community several times), and criticised instances when a member state acted in an uncharacteristically informal manner, such as when the then King Håkon of Zealandia announced an alleged "coup" by posting a short video in which he pretended to be a character with a comical voice and fake dreadlocks, and then refused to impart further information on the event. There is no record of the GUM having ever attempted to directly interfere in a nation's domestic affairs, but the organisation did encourage foreign affairs and diplomacy to be conducted in an appropriately formal fashion and expected member states to act relatively professionally on the intermicronational stage.
'On 23 May 2019, a micronation called Empire of Lehmark made headlines when it was accepted as an observer state, despite having claimed Earth. The claim was previously not public knowledge. Adam I, Chair of the GUM at the time, said Lehmark would be expelled unless they retracted their claims.'
This is inaccurate and abusive. The claim was made public on our website and if you people did your job and "researched" the nations that apply, you would have read it. Not too mention it was claimed for a total of 3 days while I attempted to learn what a micronation was allowed to claim, and instead of trying to help us as a new nation, the mature nations of your organisation chose to tear us down. We suggest you do your homework before you make certain accusations, about an event that took place almost 1 year ago. Also if you going to make a criticism page, we would suggest talking about your toxic culture and environment.
@Gb555: This is an actual event that happened, and is cited. Just because you regret it does not mean it did not happen, it should still be noted, even if you did retract your claims. And a criticism page is not inherently "toxic culture". Z. Luna Skye (Prince Zarel I) (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't regret it. Don't put words in my mouth. If you read my comment I am clearly commenting in the toxic culture that the GUM creates. In any case. I don't give permission for this to be published. Gb555 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- You don't own this information. It's cited in a newspaper, in the public domain, and it's not defamatory, nor does it infringe on your personal privacy. So your permission is irrelevant. If you continue to remove this section, I will have to treat it as vandalism. If it's any consolation, my side of the story is merely that despite looking at your website we did not see anything about you claiming the whole Earth. That only came out after the GUM's critics at The Glastieven decided to use that fact to embarass the organisation, effectively forcing me to threaten to expel you. Since all this section does is cite their article, perhaps you should take this up with The Glastieven. ADAMVS PRIMVS IMPERATOR 22:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Defamation is irrelevant whether I'm a person or country if I revoke permission to publish something, regardless of whether it's in the public domain or not. You must respect that under the law. Threaten me all you like. I revoke permission and will not allow you to publish this. The information was completely available on our website and at no time did we hide that claim. It was completely public knowledge. Gb555 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Woah, now. I don't really get what is going on, but this is the internet. People have the freedom to say what they want and chronicle something that happened. If you are mad about someone publicizing you don't like, go to the source. Take Adam's advice and talk to the The Glastieven. Do you think politicians do this when something they don't want to be out there is referenced on Wikipedia? Microwiki is public domain, which is defined as: consisting of all the creative work to which no exclusive intellectual property rights apply. This means that if it is about you, and not any your private works, you cannot tell someone they cannot write about it. --President William Wilson, Archduke of Wilson (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Under what law? In most countries that article would remain up until the heat death of the universe, or that website comes down from lack of domain renewal, whichever comes last. It's going to be published whether you like that fact or not. Freedom of the press is a thing outside of your own bubble, you know. In short, the fact that it's public domain indicates very clearly that this matter is no longer private, and is therefore no longer owned by any individual. You're pretty much just digging yourself into a hole at this rate. At this point, it's best to leave Lehmark's past alone and let it die, because dragging it to the front repeatedly is clearly not doing you any favors. --Zenrax (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Preface contains incorrect and/or unreferenced positions.
- The belief that modern criticism comes from "newer and younger" members is unreferenced and we'd argue it's an intentional misinterpretation of what counts as a "new member". Arguably, the GUM is more popular amongst new members with people like Zarel Smith, Nicholas Randouler, Austin Jaax and whoever is behind Brienia being avid supporters of it.
- The belief that those who have been rejected or expelled from the organisation for unprofessionalism tend to be more likely to criticise it, although likely true, is unreferenced and may in certain situations be a personal attack.
- The belief that those who have been involved in GUM-related scandals in the past tend to be more likely to criticise it is unreferenced and also in certain situations a personal attack.
- The term YAMO doesn't require longevity but purely refers to one of many micronational organisations considered useless. We're fully aware that certain GUM members claim that they coined the term and that it therefore doesn't apply to them, but that's simply not how the word works, even if they coined it.
- The belief that the GUM is the "the leading forum for intermicronational diplomacy" has only one source and that source is an opinion piece written by a supporter of the GUM. It would be like asking a member of the Knesset what his opinion on Jerusalem is and using that as a source as to who is the rightful owner of Jerusalem.
If these beliefs won't be backed up by proper sources, we'll remove them in line with the recommendations made by the banner on the page stating that Unreferenced material may be challenged and removed.
--MinistryOfForeignAffairsEncylopaedicRepresentationProject (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hello! First of all thank you for taking this to the talk page. I would be in support of removing unreferenced material after it has been unreferenced for a certain period of time (i.e. two weeks, maybe more), or it it reaches consensus before than. And to reply to your points:
- It is indeed subjective what counts as a "newer and younger" member, I always thought it was perhaps three months or less at the earliest example - either way whatever it means, criticism is definitely from a varying members of all ages from what I have seen, so if it remains unreferenced I would be in favour of removing it.
- Like on Wikipedia, commonly known or assumed facts which are unreferenced are allowed to stay in certain cases as long as it has a citation needed template. I would be fine with it either staying or being removed, however it would be up to other editors to find consensus on that.
- I have little information on the scandal, but from an outsiders view on it it seems accurate - although again, I am in favour of its removal if it is unreferenced for too long.
- I brought this up a while back, the term YAMO does have multiple meanings, but it does usually mean an organisation which is short-lived. Either way I keep my same opinion as before and I would be in favour of removing the longevity statement.
- This refers to specifically the MicroWiki Sector, and being that the GUM is the largest organisation in the MicroWiki Sector it should be considered a fact. A larger organisation, ComSov, is in the MicroWiki Sector, however a large number of its diplomacy is conducted through the Twitter Sector. And although MicroWiki has no completely defined standards on what news is considered reliable, the source is somewhat respected and seems to be accurate. Anthony Clark is also not a supporter of the GUM as far as I am aware, and the news source was even criticising an aspect of the GUM.
Feel free to reply to any of my points you disagree with. --2:21 pm (13:21), 30 April 2020 (BST; UTC+1)
October 2020 merge discussion
- Given the page is redirected now.. heres a link with the old text for merging. https://micronations.wiki/index.php?title=ContraGUMism&direction=prev&oldid=687484
Sertor (Chat) 02:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)