Jump to content

Talk:Republic of Rose Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

[edit]

This page needs a whole lot of NPOV-ifying. --Kwekuboat 16:16, 7 July 2003

Done. --Mpt04:01, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Telegram

[edit]

I modified this:

The platform's Council of Government sent a telegram(to whom?)to protest the "violation of its sovereignty and the injury inflicted on local tourism by the military occupation", but this was ignored.

removing the "to whom?". It's a good question though. Who got the telegram? I would assume the Italian government. --cprompt14:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Lemma

[edit]

According the article, the name of this "micronation is, in Italian," Isole delle Rose ", which meansIslands of the Rosesand not Rose Island. --SeekingOne13:29, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

The Italian name is not familiar to me - its presence here predates my editing of the article - however the name that appears on Rose Island's stamps is "Insulo de la Rozoj", which as near as I can tell is expressed in the singular form - but I'm no Esperanto expert. --Gene_poole22:41, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
it:MicronazionehasIsola.--Error05:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Insulo" is indeed the singular form in Esperanto (the plural would be "insuloj" ), so "Island of the Roses" is certainly correct. --PeterHansen23:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I found a website talking of "Isola delle Rose" (this is the right translation, I speak both Italian and Esperanto)
How would you translateRose Islandto Italian, then? —Tamfang22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As several users have pointed out many years ago, "Isola delle Rose" and "Insulo de la Rozoj" both mean "Island of the Roses" or "Roses Island" (or "Roses' Island" ). Unless someone comes up with good arguments why the lemma should use "Rose Island" I will move the article accordingly, the next time I come across it. (probably sometime in 2024...)
@ Tamfang: "Isola della Rosa". And Esperanto is very precise in such things, it would be "Insulo de la Rozo".
--BjKa(talk)12:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A literal translation of the Esperanta name would beIsland of the Roses;presumably we're not using that because it's alien to English naming custom – as isRoses Island.In New World English, at least, a place known for its pebbles,turtlesor oaksis typicallyPebble Beach,Turtle CreekorOak Hill.(I'm sure I've heard of places named with a plural noun in Spanish or French,... de las...&c, and the corresponding singular noun in English, though none come to mind.) —Tamfang(talk)08:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

More references (pointers to old newspaper articles, books, etc.) would be nice.Samboy23:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://www.imperial-collection.net/rose_island.html
there is a picture of the original flag and all the stamps issued by the short-lived republic
-- 145.18.189.23, 18:21, 6 February 2005

I agree with Samboy. Is it possible to find a non-internet reference to this? While this story is certainly possible, it's also outlandish enough that further proof would be appreciated.Dvyost15:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I salvaged the following from thewebarchive ghostof a bibliography page no longer available on theFootnotes to Historysite. It cites pages 129-130 of Erwin W. Strauss'sHow To Start Your Own Country(Port Townshend, WA: Breakout Productions, Inc., 1999) as a source for this story. --DublinDilettante,12:33, 2 July 2005

[1]has a link for a podcast where the director of the Esperanto League of North America discusses Rose Island. Bandwidth is currently exceeded, have to wait until tomorrow to hear it.commonbrick17:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt / Good Article

[edit]

I very much doubt whether the micronation known as "Rose Island" has ever even existed beyond imagination. I mean, how could one engineer construct a platform on nine pylons, in deep water eleven kilometres off the coast? -- 84.222.69.182, 18:25, 4 June 2005

Good Article Tag added byStan2525,00:29, 24 December 2005

At first reading my feeling was "what a shame they destroyed it". Now I'm wondering if the entire thing is an elaborate hoax. I don't know enough about it to decide, but since people have been questioning the veracity of this on this page since 2003 I think it's reasonable to tag the article.I don't know if it's a hoax or notand that's the purpose of the tag - to encourage a process of discovery. --kingboyk22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Tag removed byKingboyk,23:08, 3 February 2006

It's certainly no hoax. It's a well-known historical fact. I assume you overlooked the references, photographs andthis.Might be best to take some more care before jumping to conclusions in future.
I've also restored the Good Article tag - which for the record, I was not responsible for adding in the first place. I'm not sure why you removed it, as the article complies with all the necessary requirements, namely: well written, factually accurate, neutral point, stable referenced, and contain images. --Centauri23:57, 3 February 2006
I didn't jump toanyconclusions. I simply stated thatI don't know if it's a hoax or not.The article didn't convince me, therefore it's hardly "good" I would say. More to the point, it is very lacking in hard sources.
[2]is in Italian. Sadly I speak only English.
Finally, you say I missed "this" but where exactly is that link in the article?! I still can't find it.
--kingboyk23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being "convincing" is not one of the criteria for determining if an article is good or not, so I'm not sure what you mean by that comment. On top of which there are by my count 3 different references given between the article and this talk page - one of which is in Italian, as you might reasonably expect given that the events discussed occurred in the vicinity of Italy. Finally the link I referred you to was discovered by doing aGoogle searchthat took me all of 3 minutes. I will certainly add it to the references. --Centauri23:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Tag exchanged for Delisted GA Tag byTheGrappler04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article achieves all the GA requirements bar one - any images used need to be appropriatelytagged.(I try to remember the features of GA using the awful mnemonic BRAWWSTIN - Broad, Referenced, Accurate, Well-Written, Stable, Tagged Images, NPOV; "broad" is not necessarily comprehensive, but no major omissions. This certainly seems to hit BRAWWS- and -IN but not, at the moment, the "T"!) The photo uses an obsolete template and is unsourced, making any verification of PD status impossible. PD seems unlikely; on photographs the usual reasons are: work of U.S. government (most other governments retain copyright - including, I believe, Italy), age (this is a relatively modern photo), or that it has been released by the copyright holder (this seems rather unlikely for such an aerial photograph, whilst it is plausible, something that details the release is necessary). The other picture is apparently released under GFDL by the creator, which is an appropriate tag. Once the photograph is either accurately sourced and appropriately tagged, or alternatively is removed, GA should be reinstated.TheGrappler04:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the article and the previous complaint in regards to it, and it seems that the image of the island still needs to be tagged in order to qualify for GA.ErleGrey01:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that no one is around to shepherd this nomination; I'm going to delist it, since the image is still not properly tagged.Chubbles07:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unconstructive comment

[edit]

This is the funniest article ive ever read --Zeno of Elea06:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arms / Flag

[edit]

Did the Republic have arms (are they those shown on the flag)? --Daniel C. Boyer20:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:Flag Rose Island.gif

Image:Flag Rose Island.gifis being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair usebut there is noexplanation or rationaleas to why its use inthisWikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template,you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent withfair use.
Please go tothe image description pageand edit it to include afair use rationale.Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guidelineis an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion.If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page.Thank you.
--BetacommandBot(talk)19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The Lonely Planet Micronations guide shows a flag different to the one shown in the article. Does anybody know why this is? --Onecanadasquarebishopsgate17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Because the flag in Lonely Planet was created by me a number of years ago based on a written description, without the benefit of photographic evidence. The latter only came to light after the publication of the LP guide. The Rose Island flag is more acurately described as a pennant. --Gene_poole(talk)18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That means that the flag caption will have to be changed to pennant. --Onecanadasquarebishopsgate18:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The flag currently shown in this article is incorrect. It was created by me based on a written description. I have subsequently sighted a photograph of the actual flag in an article on this subject published in the journal of the Cinderella Stamp Club (UK), which shows it to be a triangular pennant, not a rectangular flag. I previously uploaded an updated image of the correct design, but it seems to have vanished. Does anyone know why? --Gene_poole(talk)08:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of occupation and destruction?

[edit]

The article only mentioned that the Italian reaction was heavy-handed and swift, are there any dates available to show when the Italians take over the island, and when they destroyed it? --deadkid_dk23:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy-handed? Four cops?—Precedingunsignedcomment added by79.44.22.252(talk)00:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similiar occurances

[edit]

Sealandand other micronations were established during the same period. Shouldn't the article mention that, as context?Fsotrain0921:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has obviously beenDonein the meantime. --BjKa(talk)12:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currency unit

[edit]

Quote:Purported currency:Mill(Esperanto: "milo"...)
Esperantomilois a group of a thousand. Amill (currency)is 0.001 of a basic unit; in Esperanto that would bemilono.Most likelymilohere refers tospesmilo,and I'll change it accordingly. —Tamfang(talk)19:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it has been changed back. Even if President Rosa ever called itmillin English, it shares only that name with other units calledmill.—Tamfang(talk)17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which province?

[edit]

Some phrases now removed seemed to say that the nearest coastline belonged in 1968 to Forlì province but now belongs to Rimini province. Is that what was intended? —Tamfang(talk)08:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links onRepublic of Rose Island.Please take a moment to reviewmy edit.If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQfor additional information. I made the following changes:

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 byInternetArchiveBot.No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verificationusing the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permissionto delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfCbefore 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 withthis tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)09:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More here

[edit]

BBC article about the island and film: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55092341.-Onanoff(talk)06:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journalistic style

[edit]

@RevirvlkodlakuandTim riley:I added "the" in this phrase: "built bytheItalian engineer Giorgio Rosa "with the edit summaryfalse title.That article describes the history of omitting "the" in constructions like this and characterizes it as typical of journalistic, especially tabloid style.Revirvlkodlaku reverted.I don't think encyclopedias should sound likeTimemagazine or theNew York Post.--Macrakis(talk)16:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macrakis,thank you for pointing this out. I will review the construction soon. I've always thought it was correct, but perhaps I have been mistaken.Revirvlkodlaku(talk)16:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Macrakis, I cordially concur with your view. False titles are established in AmE (despite the wise advice against them of theNew York Timesstyle guide) and have been encroaching into the Queen's English for some time. It's probably a losing battle, but still worth fighting, to keep false titles out of formal BrE prose.Tim rileytalk16:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian cruiser Andrea Doria

[edit]

The film mentions that the Navy ship in the climactic scene is Andrea Doria. I tried to google whether that was in real life or was the ship that was used in the filming. The ship in the scene looks like it might be. It would be nifty fact if we could confirm it. I had little luck in finding it though.Americasroof(talk)02:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

although…

[edit]
Although Rose Island had its own government, currency, post office, and commercial establishments, and the official language wasEsperanto,it was never formally recognized

Would one expect the adoption of Esperanto to make recognition more likely? I would put its mention elsewhere. (This sentence was welded from parts of two paragraphs.)—Tamfang(talk)17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Rose_Island&oldid=1256157338"