Talk:Holy Roman Empire

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

nice --People's Republic of Phokland (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Irrational claims in the article

I call on other contributors to this article to start being sensible and stop adding misleading claims to the article. MicroWiki is an academic encyclopedia, and as such, it reflects how things actually are, rather than what the micronation claims. The reality is that you're not a HRE but a micronational union that claims to be the revived HRE, and that's how it should be reflected in the article. But at least we have agreed that the date of foundation should be 2014 and not 25 December 800 as it was when I started editing the article, that's already something I guess.

Now I'm going to talk in detail about my edits that keep being reverted.

The Holy Roman Empire (Latin: Sacrum Romanum Imperium) is a multi-ethnic imperial confederation of micronations founded in 2014 by Quentin of Wyvern who declared himself Emperor Quentin that claims to be the continuation of the original Holy Roman Empire dissolved

Reverted to:

The Holy Roman Empire (Latin: Sacrum Romanum Imperium) is a multi-ethnic imperial confederation. The Empire claims to be the continuation of the Holy Roman Empire that existed between the years 800 and 1806. As such the Empire sees itself as being refounded by Emperor Quentin.

I certainly can see why Bradley doesn't want it to be called a "confederation of micronations", but this is precisely what his organization is. There are plenty of micronations that don't call themselves micronations - Lostisland included, by the way, same for Atlantium - yet they're called micronations on MicroWiki because that's what they are. It has also been customary on MicroWiki for decades that articles about micronational organizations follow the same standard: X is a micronational organization founded on date:

The Grand Unified Micronational, commonly abbrieviated as the GUM, is an intermicronational organisation with the aim of helping diplomatic relations between micronations, with a general focus on its own member states. Based around the MicroWiki Community and founded in January 2009

The Cupertino Alliance (/ˌkuːpərˈtiːnoʊɑːlɑːɪəns/ About this sound (listen) (help·info)) (also known as the CUP[9], also formerly known as the Epic Union, Independent Economical Union, and the Cupertino Unified Micronational)[10][11] is an intermicronational organization founded on 10 March 2019.

The Micronational Confederation is an inter-micronational organisation with the purpose to maintain peace and security between the various micronations and to end preventative measures and remove threats which would threaten peace and security of its members. It was founded on May 2019 by the Empire of Lehmark.

I fail to see why this project should be afforded any special treatment, and if its founders truly don't consider it a micronation, nor a micronational union, nor a micronational organization, then I kind of wonder what was the purpose of writing an article in a micronational encyclopedia in the first place. It's also worth noting that the article is in Category:Micronations.

The Empire holds no actual power over the claimed territories

Reverted to:

The Empire holds little to no defacto power over what it claimes to be its dejure territories

The latter quote is simply poorly written, too clumsy, and not even orthographically correct: the correct spelling is de facto/de jure, not defacto/dejure. The "little to no" sounds like an excuse because you guys don't want to outright admit the truth and it doesn't really add anything to the article.

These governments are not represented in the Imperial Diet and are not recognised by German, Italian, and French authorities.

Reverted to:

These governments are not represented in the Imperial Diet.

Here you claim to have governments of actual countries and regions: Germany, Italy, and Burgundy, and object to the mention that these are not recognized by macronational authorities. Had I not personally known the people behind this HRE, I'd've said that you're a passport mill targeting refugees who seek EU residency. I do understand that this isn't the case, but I still believe that a disclaimer about lack of recognition is necessary. Montescano has no issue adding such a disclaimer to the FAQ on their website, ditto for Two Melillas.

The Holy Roman Empire claims that all historical territories of the original HRE and all member-states are Imperial Estates of the Empire and are bound by Imperial Law and Imperial Authority.

Reverted to:

The Holy Roman Empire claims that all historical territories of that Holy Roman Empire (800-1806) has had during its existance as rightfully part of the Empire and should be Imperial Estates of the Empire. All member-states are Imperial Estates of the Empire and are bound by Imperial Law and Imperial Authority.

Again: too clumsy, grammatically and orthographically incorrect, and I maintain that a distinction between your HRE (a micronational confederation) and the original HRE (an actual political entity in Europe) is necessary. Claim what you want on your website (if you had any), but MicroWiki should remain academic and neutral.

The Empire doesn't exercise any control over the territories in question, and these claims are not recognised by German, Italian, French, or Czech authorities.

I can see that the other editors are constantly blanking this addition. Given that I've known Bradley and Quentin for ages, I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt, but I can't, in good faith, fathom any reason why would you oppose this addition unless you're willing to pretend to be something you're not. --Yaroslav (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Yaroslav here. While I understand that the Authors (who are all members of the organisation themselves) want to profile themselves as the original HRE, let's be real and understand that it is not the real HRE but a micronational organisation. This would be the same as Austenasia writing on their microwiki page that they were founded in 750 BC as the claimant of being the continuation of the Roman Empire. There should be a seperation between the website of the organisation (which can be full of self-propaganda) and an encyclopedia. Deniz (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. In the articles there are enough links to the orginal HRE. the wording original isnt needed. Though I do agree with making the distinction. Thats why I added 800-1806. And I wont get real It wouldnt be a claim if we didnt claim it.. So no, I wont recognise that it isnt a continuation :P. We can bend the text to accomodate this fair point but adding original is too much. that would flat out deny any claim as false and that isnt neutral at all. --DukeDullahan (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
"The Empire doesn't exercise any control over the territories in question, and these claims are not recognised by German, Italian, French, or Czech authorities." - A disclaimer like this is not considered necessary on articles on any other micronations. It's not, for example, necessary to say that Austenasia's claim over Wrythe is not recognised by the British authorities. Why should the HRE have to include this disclaimer specifically? Does the size of the claims matter? Surely it's obvious that macronational authorities don't recognise micronational claims in general? ADAMVS PRIMVS IMPERATOR 17:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Austenasia doesn’t claim Wrythe. Austenasia claims several buildings and land plots in the district of Wrythe which are Jonathan’s property, and this distinction is explicitly mentioned in the article:

Wrythe is named after the road in the United Kingdom which runs past the Imperial Residence, Green Wrythe Lane. This takes its name from the area of the British town of Carshalton which it runs through for most of its length, known as the Wrythe, an area between (both in terms of location and age) the historic centre of the town and the more recently built St. Helier Estate.

This isn’t the same as claiming to be the governors of Germany or Italy. Yaroslav (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Though the Empire does claim the land as part of its imperium, currently the only part of the Kingdom of Germany we claim sovereignity over are the lands that Wyvern or any other member controls within the Kingdom of Germany. Much like the Kingdom of Arles (Burgundy) which was NOT a part of the latter HRE the Archchancellor (govenor) position remained as did the title and the crown. The HRE aims to regain the lost territories but as the article states it does acknowledge it doesnt have control over it. That Germany and Italy dont recognise the Empire is quite logical, no ones claims here are recognised no matter the size of them, I've never seen you make these points for nations who claim the entire antartic. Its irrelevant to add.
Then on the Kingdoms as you mentioned it over and over again. The Federal Republic of Germany =/= the Kingdom of Germany. The Kingdom of Bohemia =/= the Czech Republic. Its not passport baiting. The Netherlands lays within the historic Kingdom of Germany as part of the Holy Roman Empire. We dont claim to rule or control their governments, we simply continue the partice of appointing Archchancellors for them. Would you be content if we removed the entire part of local governments and only mention the Archchancellors?
Do you admit that Lostisland doesnt have any control over its territories? Because you are applying double standards because you disagree with a claim we make.
In regards to the 'Imperial Confederation of Micronations' I concede that that is fine and it is true. Regarding the founding date, I dont mind the article saying it was founded in 2014 as long as it also states that we claim it to be a refounding rather than a founding. And if we are calling out errors: Declaring himself Emperor Quentin is wrong, dead wrong. It should as I wrote it be: Declared himself Emperor. He was already an Emperor prior to this.
I'm sure we will find a suitable middle ground that can satisfy both of us.--DukeDullahan (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Though the Empire does claim the land as part of its imperium, currently the only part of the Kingdom of Germany we claim sovereignity over are the lands that Wyvern or any other member controls within the Kingdom of Germany

Well this isn't what followed from the article.

That Germany and Italy dont recognise the Empire is quite logical, no ones claims here are recognised no matter the size of them, I've never seen you make these points for nations who claim the entire antartic. Its irrelevant to add.

Antarctica is terra nullius, Germany and Italy certainly aren't. And there's nothing wrong with claiming land that isn't terra nullius, but when you use the names of countries or administrative divisions - that's where I believe a clarification is necessary. The article about Wrythe, that Adam so graciously pointed out, is actually a perfect example: Austenasia's capital has the same name as a Carshalton district, yet the article makes a clear distinction between micronational Wrythe and the district itself. I don't believe this has been achieved in the HRE article, and the way it's worded now is certainly misleading.

The Federal Republic of Germany =/= the Kingdom of Germany. The Kingdom of Bohemia =/= the Czech Republic. Its not passport baiting.

I explicitly said that I don't believe you're passport baiting, you're an honorable person and I know that you don't do such things. But a stranger's impression will be that you're doing just that, and using dated or historical names of countries or regions is actually a known scam tactic of avoiding legal responsibilities. "Kingdom of Bohemia Passport" indeed isn't the same as "Czech Republic Passport", but it sounds "official" enough for a not very educated Pakistani or Somalian man to fall for it and send his money. Anton Bakov, if you're familiar with the name, was doing just that, when he offered "Russian Empire" passports for sale.

Would you be content if we removed the entire part of local governments and only mention the Archchancellors?

This would be indeed better but I still suggest that you make a clarification the appointments are symbolic.

Do you admit that Lostisland doesnt have any control over its territories? Because you are applying double standards because you disagree with a claim we make.

You've known me for nearly a decade, and still you haven't figured out what should be quite obvious: it's not possible to accuse me of double standards, I'm the embodiment of impartiality. I've repeatedly banned my friends from M&RH for insulting my enemies, because I put group rules above personal loyalties. So yes, of course I admit that Lostisland doesn't have any control over our territory: it's explicitly stated on our website, precisely to avoid the confusion I'm talking about and not to give a wrong impression to potential citizens.

I dont mind the article saying it was founded in 2014 as long as it also states that we claim it to be a refounding rather than a founding

I don't mind the article saying that you claim to be refounding the HRE, because this is indeed true. But as you yourself said, it should state that you claim to have refounded the HRE, not that you refounded the HRE.

And if we are calling out errors: Declaring himself Emperor Quentin is wrong, dead wrong. It should as I wrote it be: Declared himself Emperor. He was already an Emperor prior to this.

I don't get what you're trying to say, sorry. How can one phrase be "dead wrong" and the other correct if the only difference is that one mentions Quentin's name and the other doesn't? --Yaroslav (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It was a bit heated, granted appologies for that Yaroslav. I agree that the wording for the claims of the Empire should be made out more explicitly. The Empire nomanily claims these lands, the official claim is even seen as follows: We claim these lands to be rightfully ours, but we dont control them and we wont pursue an active return of these territories. I also agree that the Archchancellor should be specified that it is symbolic, which it is. Can we find an agreement on that. I agree that the article didnt really showcase the nature of the claims perfectly at all.--DukeDullahan (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)