Talk:Murrawarri Republic

Independence Movement or Unrecognised state?

Title is pretty self explanatory, they have already declared their independence and are now pending admittance into the United Nations as the world's newest country. So should it be reworded to "unrecognised state?"

Also if anyone can get the Murrawarri flag on here that would be great thanks.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You have to be a state to be an unrecognized state. That means having a set territory and control over it. There's no source here that they can or do act independent of Australian authorities. (and also the UN will blink and continue on its important business) --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Their population appears to be of the order of 1000 people. (add the populations of the two shires over which the territory extends then subtract the populations of the two towns that lie outside the territory. As Golbez says, the UN will ignore them. Martinvl (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Not A Micronation

I would argue that this is not a micronation, as micronations tend to be small in area and usually have few people think "Sealand" for example. Whereas the Murrawarri Republic has a large support base as well as a large claimed territory. --Collingwood26 (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The smallest independent countries are Nauru (population 9945), Tuvalu (population 11,246), Palau (population 20,770), San Marino (population 32,382). Of these, San Marino is the smallest country that has a land boundary with another country, The population of the Murrawarri Republic appears to be les that 1500, 5% of the population of San Marino. Area has nothing to do with nationhood. Until proven otherwise, I therefore rate Murrawarri as a micronation. Martinvl (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thats not true, the Pitcairn Islands have a population of roughly 70 people and the Vatican has roughly 800.--Collingwood26 (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Pitcairn Islands aren't an independent country (they are British Overseas Territory) and the Vatican City is really not comparable. It's a church masquerading as a state. Also, much larger territories (ie Westarctica) have been considered micronations. TDL (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's not a micronation, and I say this as someone who finds the entire concept of it laughable. It's not a country, it has no hope of being one, and their idea that the queen's lack of response is tacit recognition is simply a joke. But, it's too big to be a micronation. Micronations usually are just a person or a handful of people, consisting of an apartment or what not. This is more real than a micronation, less real than a country. --Golbez (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, micronations tend to be fanciful in nature, consisting of only a single person up to a dozen and are not based on any historical state. Whereas the Murrwarri Republic claims to have been its own soveriegn state before European colonization and has strong reasons for independence.--Collingwood26 (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hold on there. It is far more like a micronation than the absurdly-over-the-top characterisation as "an unrecognised, self-declared sovereign state" that I have just reverted. It is far from clear that it has "strong reasons for independence" (though most micronations would make similar claims).

It doesn't matter what the reason why the micronation was created was, and the Murrawarri republic drops fairly cleanly into the article micronation's section "vehicles for agenda promotion". There are plenty of micronations out there with lots of "citizens" (the Kingdom of Lovely ended up with close to 60000) and/or that claim large territory (the Republic of Lakotah - which also has well over 4000 "citizens") so the fact that Murrawarri Republic is higher than average on both isn't particularly significant. Kahastok talk 09:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the Murrawarri Republic considers itself to be independent, they don't consider it to be an independence movement because they don't believe they ever lost their independence. Their reasons for independence are already mentioned in the article, and it is completely fanciful to call it a micronation, it is more on par with other places such as Abkhazia.--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Every micronation on the planet considers itself independent. By definition. Even based on this rather-biased article, there is no sense in which they are comparable with Abkhazia. Abkhazia has international recognition and has control over a fair slice of territory. Somaliland can point to plenty of sources that clearly state that it has sovereign (or sovereign-like) control over significant territory. Murrawarri Republic has neither. It has no recognition. It controls no territory in any reasonable sense. It is an aspiration, maybe - but so are all micronations. I see nothing in the article to persuade me that it is not a micronation. Kahastok talk 14:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lede. It is a fact that a certain group has declared independence. It is a fact that the independence declaration applies to a specific piece of territory. It is a fact that Australian Government, the government most affected by the declaration has ignored the declaration. I have summarized all of these points as neutrally as possible. BTW, it Murrawarri Republic is not an independence movement as asserted in an earlier version of the lede, it is a country (or at least purports to be one). Martinvl (talk) 16:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Is an enclave" seems to me to be a very bad wording. San Marino is an enclave. Speedway, Indiana, is an enclave inside Indianapolis. So to say it's an "enclave" offers no real context for what it is. I'm changing that to ... hm. I'm trying something, take a look at the article. --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's a micronation! Most of the "4000 people" living within the "republic's" self-declared borders aren't even Aboriginal much less Murrawarri. I doubt very many of them would accept this "peoples' council" has any authority over them! The "republic" actually only consists of this "peoples' council" of eleven people! Do they even have the right to speak for the Murrawarri much less anyone else who lives there? I doubt it, they only claim they do. "Prince" Leonard's Hutt River Province has more "loyal citizens" and no one would call that anything other than a micronation.

Is Murrawarri Republic a "sovereign state"?

On 20 July User:Collingwood26 changed the lede to refer to the Murrawarri Republic as an "unrecognised, self-declared sovereign state", which is similar to the sort of description we would use for genuine states with limited recognition. I reverted per WP:BRD today, on the grounds that I find this description misleading and strongly POV.

So connected to the question above, do others here believe that it is neutral to refer to Murrawarri Republic as a "sovereign state"? Kahastok talk 14:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no sourcing that it can or has exercised any sovereign power over its claimed territory. Unless the Australian authorities say they have had any trouble exercising Australian law there, or until someone says that Murrawarri law is in effect there, no, they are not a sovereign state. --Golbez (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between the Murrawarri Republic and Somaliland? If your going to refer to one as a self declared sovereign state then you have to declare the other the same as well.--Collingwood26 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Other than size, population, a functioning government and economy, their own currency, and a military with the ability to defend their borders? ... Probably still a lot. --Golbez (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and sourcing. I see zero independent sources qualifying Murrawarri as a sovereign nation. --Golbez (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Size as in area? Well in that case the Murrawarri Republic would be the 124th country by area. Population? The Murrawarri Republic has a population of roughly 2 thousand people. Government? Currently the Provisional Council of State is serving the interests of the Murrawarri Republic until a referendum is held which will be no later than 1st April 2014. Currency? They have a currency, they have stated they will use the Australian dollar but establish their own reserve. Military? Not too many threats against the republic, although they have established their own Ministry of Defence. You will need to do better than that..--Collingwood26 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC) http://world.time.com/2013/05/30/australias-aborigines-launch-a-bold-legal-push-for-independence/--Collingwood26 (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You asked what the differences are. Somaliland has a much larger area, MUCH larger population, a functioning government (there is zero sources on the government of the Murrawarri Republic existing outside of one council; are there services?). As for a military, not required obviously, but the ability to defend and police your borders is, and there is no sourcing that the Murrawarri Republic has any police force. Or any government whatsoever, really. A group of people saying they're a government means nothing without action. So, no, it's not I who will need to do better. If you continue to refuse to provide sources, I'm going to have to assume they don't exist, and this kind of bold statement needs to be sourced. (They don't exist, btw) --Golbez (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As for your source - that the Murrawarri Republic has pushed for independence is not in dispute. That they have achieved any sense of it is. To claim that Murrawarri carries sovereign power is entirely unsourced. Do not put it back unless you can quote the notion of a functioning government from a third party source. --Golbez (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So the fact that the Murrawarri Republic is larger than about 100 other countries accounts for nothing? Also they are not pushing for independence, read the article...--Collingwood26 (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You literally asked for "differences between Somaliland and Murrawarri". The fact that Somaliland is larger is a difference. However, it was just a lead in for me to point out that having a functional government was a main thing. Also, them claiming that much area is pretty much useless. They could claim surgically half of Australia and still not have a population more than 3000. If picking apart that one part of what I said is what you're sticking on, then you have a steeper climb than you think. As for "read the article, they are not pushing for independence," then why does the article literally say they "declared their independence?" Why can't you keep your own arguments consistent? --Golbez (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood26: "they are not pushing for independence, read the article"

Article: "Australia’s Aborigines Launch a Bold Legal Push for Independence"

If they aren't pushing for independence, then someone needs to be fired for that title. TDL (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

When I said article I wasn't referring to the link I posted on here, I was referring to this article. The Murrawarri aren't pushing for independence because they don't believe they ever lost it. Once again read more carefully.--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless you have adequate sourcing saying they hold any sovereign power whatsoever, that assertion cannot go back in the article. If you want to change the subject, that's fine, but getting us into this minutiae of 'are they pushing for independence' is a useless argument that gets us nowhere. --Golbez (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This link describes it as a sovereign nation.http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/07/25/meet-murrawarri-worlds-newest-sovereign-nation-forms-australia-150583 --Collingwood26 (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a reason I specified adequate. Sovereignty is only mentioned in the headline, it's not even justified in the article. This is pretty weak grounds to make the solid statement on Wikipedia that they are sovereign. We need multiple, independent third party sources indicating and justifying their indication that they are a sovereign power. And I'm not really impugning Indian Country on this; I'm sure they're a wonderful paper. Browsing through them I see a lot of good stuff. But I think before we make the bold statement that Murrawarri has sovereign power, we need multiple sources saying so. It'd also be nice to have a source, any source, saying they have a functional government (i.e. not just one that exists, but one that functions. Police, etc. It seems clear to me at this point they do not, and to be sovereign you need to be able to function as one. --Golbez (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the key here is control, no source i have read has stated anything to the effect that the Murrawarri republic has established effective control over the area it controls. There is no indication that the people living its its claimed area have ceased adhearing to the laws of Australia nor is their any indication that the Murrawarri republic has been enforcing its laws and sovreignty through military force.XavierGreen (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood26, they are pushing for independence. I find it highly unlikely that Fred Hooper and the others have not registered on the electoral roll and voted in Federal and State Elections. Hooper also owns a station, no doubt has title deeds etc. Accepting any of these things, or taking a grievance to court, implies that he has recognised the Sovereignty of the Government! This whole sovereignty thing was cooked up by HC Coombs and other campaigners in the late '70's. The idea was to push for a "Treaty". This treaty was to make Aboriginals the landowners of Australia, with everyone else leasing land off of them. Coombs's view was this would transform them from the poorest people in the country to the richest. It would also give them a legal position for their cultural practices, Aboriginal law etc. I think that many looked across the Tasman and saw the higher status of the Maori in New Zealand, and how the Treaty of Waitangi was used in land claims from the 80's on, and thought this was a way to advance the Aboriginal cause. The sovereignty issue came into it because questions were asked about why the 98% of the population who weren't Aboriginal should back such a radical change. Coombs claimed that we needed a document of cessation from the Aboriginals to make us legally secure. This was supposed to mean we could hold up such a scrap of paper against any future foreign interloper who decided they wanted some Australian territory. But as the Australian government is universally recognised as the Sovereign authority over the whole of Australia, I think he's stretching this a bit. This was a tool for raising the status of Aboriginal people both socially and economically within Australia (basically Aboriginals get a treaty, ownership of land, legal establishment of at least some of their customs, and a much higher share of Australia's wealth - in exchange they formally submit that they are citizens of Australia and the rest of us have the right to live here with a sovereign elected government), but the idea seems to have taken a life of it's own (like that person who put in that diatribe on the talk page for the 1967 Referendum a few years ago). Now this "Murrawarri Republic" may not be serious: they may only be trying to get publicity for the Aboriginal Cause, or they may be trying to get "nuisance money" from the government to make them go away! But they certainly do not enforce any laws in their proclaimed country; hold courts; exercise any authority over all the people who live there. Just because one member of the council calls themselves "Minister of Defence" is not the same has having an army, a police force, a Judicial System, collecting taxes, etc. By definition a Government GOVERNS. That means they issue and enforce a series of laws, and prevent other would be authorities from doing this in their area. To be a government, you HAVE to be able to do this. The de facto government of Somaliland can do this, and the IRA were able to be the de facto government in parts of Northern Ireland. There is no evidence that this so-called "republic" can do anything of the sort. The fact they've put down April Fools' Day as the late day of their "elections" indicates to me it isn't a serious creation. Unless they get a few hundred votes in their favour (real votes, not forgeries) at this "election" I'd say this is nothing more than 11 people calling themselves a republic - a micronation if ever their was one!