Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Nation.1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 11 years ago by TiagoTiago in topic What happened to it?

This article has a reliable source: Wired Magazine and should not be deleted. Although the organization no longer exists, its three year history is of interest to a wider audience and the article should be allowed to be written. --Iwoj (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that the organization is notable in how it relates to the topics of the governance of cyberspace and youth activism. It is in many ways a continuation of the ideas laid out in A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. --Iwoj (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm having trouble getting over the fact that, as far as I can tell, Nation.1 is NOT a country. It doesn't fit the definition of country. It has no recognition as a country by any significant political body. Whilst it may well exist (or have existed) as a youth movement which models itself on a country, this is not the same as being a country. (After all, if all it took was a press release to form a country, there presumably would be a lot more people doing it.) Surely, the article should recognise this, rather than falling into line with Nation.1s media briefings? 91.84.38.65 (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

By all means, add some of this commentary. It was an attempt at creating a country that ostensibly failed. But it is still worth noting the project, particularly in the light of the notion of micronations. --Iwoj (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Use of the template

[edit]

The template on the right seems to me quite facetious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.74.60 (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Disagree. It's literal and objective, reflecting the intent. David Spector (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

What happened to it?

[edit]

The article talks about how it started; but never mentions how it ended, or what is it's current conditions. --TiagoTiago (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply