Talk:MicroCon 2023

From MicroWiki, the free micronational encyclopædia
Latest comment: 5 April 2023 by Summi Imperatoris in topic "Controversy" Section
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Citation needed

@Cloe de Sancratosia: The article says that they are accusing her and others of such ideas. Does an accusation really need to be referenced? If it phrased the people as factually holding the beliefs, I would understand it, but it simply says that it is accusing them of such. 𝄞 StrubberContributions 04:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t think the accusations need to be sourced but the call of an official boycott should. I can’t seem to find this call anywhere and the article would benefit from it being sourced. But then again, I’m sure other boycotts of this kind may not have been sourced in the past. I just don’t think it’s good practice to use articles as the main source to publicize actions. Link=Principality of Sancratosia Cloe de Sancratosia (Talk | Contributions) | About Sancratosia | 05:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The person instigating the boycott was the one that made the edit, that is (for MicroWiki's purposes) usually enough. It would be nice to have a citation though regardless, I just misinterpreted the placement initially as being needed for the accusations. 𝄞 StrubberContributions 15:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Principality of Sancratosia is right that content on articles specifically added to make bad faith accusations has in practice always been disallowed, but the claim seems to be cited now. ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 18:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was not debating what faith the accusation is in, simply whether the accusation was what was requested for citation. I don't believe that the edit was in bad faith as it clarifies why the boycott is taking place. While I am not calling the boycott a minor thing, I do continue to wish we had a policy like WP:MINORASPECT for MW. 𝄞 StrubberContributions 18:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh I know! I was just confirming the other user's concerns as valid. As for the policy, that is not a bad idea. If you have time, why not write up a concept and ask Luxor's thoughts on it? He is always open to new policy or guideline ideas. ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 02:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh alright, sorry! I might very well do that once my midterms are over. 𝄞 StrubberContributions 16:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Controversy" Section

Putting this here because this section is obviously controversial. I would say it's not notable or relevant to this page that one person decided not to go, especially as they aren't a former attendee. If for example Westarctica boycotted then that would be notable, but Wegmat not attending when they haven't attended before and them saying something baselessly is very clearly not notable for this article. If a random person in Chicago also said they weren't going then that wouldn't be notable for this page. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 & 𝙸𝙸 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 19:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yaroslav: @Wegmat: Pinging relevant parties. ZabëlleNB ♥︎ (formerly Z Luna Skye) (talk | edits) 19:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original subheader was titled "Weg Event" and not "Weg Boycott" once it was added to History. The reason I believe it is related to MicroCon 2023 is that the Wegmat Government is hosting an event also in the Chicagoland area because of the Weg stance of the worrying openness of dangerous theocracy (I am not accusing Ladonia of being a theocracy) in the micronational community in general. The only source of the planned event is the wegmatgov.org work-in-progress site. The site is not published yet so I do not think screenshots of the page are worthy enough of a reference. Some edits could be made to emphasize the fact of the plan for a similar event in the same region in response to MicroCon 2023 rather than the emphasis on why the event is planned.
Wegmat was orignally going to attend with eight delegates, however, the order from the Panton-Baird administration is what ended these discussions and started the planning for the event. The reason this event is not on the Wegmat page is because of the lack of references as it is mostly word of mouth during this phase of planning.  Prime Minister Cole Baird  My Talk Page  My contributations  21:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there's much to discuss, this boils down to a child throwing a fit about the world's largest micronational summit. Been there, seen that; every MicroCon it's the same, some look-at-me posts a rant about how he will not attend and expects others to pay attention. Last year it was Stomaria, today it's some egostan that doesn't even have a website. That's like declaring war on Molossia and expecting it to be mentioned in Molossia's article.
Wasn't notable then, isn't notable now. Yaroslav (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to say generally that I agree with this from User:Yaroslav. It's one micronation who never has attended saying they don't want to attend. If a long time attendee put all this on it then maybe it could be considered but I think that putting any weight to a random micronation in Chicago saying anything on it then frankly I think it's just ludicrous for it to be on there.
The second thing to consider is that none of these claims have actually been supported. Like the claim that Carolyn is transphobic and homophobic are just seemingly completely baseless accusations levied without evidence, and I can say personally that Ivan VII is not at all like Alexander IV. From what it looks like it's baseless accusations levelled by someone who has not even attended the event the article is about much, much less a notable attendee. I don't see why an eight person event made by someone who seemingly couldn't even attend the other one should be on one who has over sixty already registered attendees and who previously drew over one hundred attendees throwing around baseless accusations. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 & 𝙸𝙸 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yaroslav: If you can't argue in good faith then you shouldn't be arguing. You can argue notability and relevance, but hurling insults, here or edit summaries, isn't productive or helpful. 𝄞 StrubberContributions 04:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that because of the lack of references to the claim that may be seen as an accusation without evidence and comes in bad faith, the section can be removed from the article. However, the arguments against the addition of the section because Wegmat or I am some egostan is irrelevant to whether or not the future event meant for locals in Oak Park is relevant to MicroCon 2023. I agree with Christina more that because the event has not happened yet and the accusations of bigotry do not have good enough sources to be backed on MicroWiki the section can be heavily shortened or removed entirely from the article.  Prime Minister Cole Baird  My Talk Page  My contributations  13:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I would say then that it's safe to say that consensus is reached to not keep it in the article for that no claims are substantiated. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 & 𝙸𝙸 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 16:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I absolutely support retaining this in the article by the saving grace of a rival in-person event being hosted in the same general area: care should be taken however not to give this item undue weight. Sertor (Chat) 21:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another micronational summit being announced in Illinois is absolutely no evidence for notability. The organizer is of course free to create an article about it, but not to use the MicroCon article to advertise a rival event. If and when that summit actually takes place, and depending on how notable it is compared to MicroCon, we can debate its mention in this article. For now even the OP agrees that the section should be removed, so as @Summi Imperatoris: said, it's safe to conclude that consensus is reached. Yaroslav (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First I would want to say that as User:Yaroslav said, consensus is clearly reached as even the original one who had included it in the article has agreed on it. As well I would want to say that it isn't often a positive thing to conclude that consensus is falsely reached whenever even the original person who had wanted it had agreed with the claim. In this case I had called it as consensus due to User:Wegmat having agreed that the section should be removed. As well especially highlighting that the claims made are potentially defamatory and are certainly inflammatory when used in accusations that have been presented without evidence, I would want to say that it doesn't hold much weight to keep them in the article whenever not even the original author would agree to keep them. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 & 𝙸𝙸 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 01:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]