Talk:Principality of Sealand

Archives
Sealand	Sealand 2
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sealand

Regarding ref #12

Reference #12, to the lonely planet guidebook that is used 7 times in the article (a-g), can be previewed without copyright infringement on google books http://books.google.com.au/books?id=5ZRrwrlIPSYC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA13&ots=GpokmFq3IP&dq=Micronations,+Lonely+Planet+sealand perhaps that should be what the reference points to.

I've so far found that this is wrong

"1997: Due to the massive quantity of illegal passports in circulation (estimated at 150,000)[citation needed], the Bates family revoked all Sealand passports, including those that they themselves had issued in the previous thirty years.[12]"

The lonely planet guidebook states and a section in this wikipedia article state that Bates started issuing passports in 1975 so they only revoked passports they issued over the past 22 years, not thirty.

Please adjust the article and check on other "facts" in the wikipedia article using this reference. I'm too new and get yelled at for changing stuff. (Abacusbox (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC))

I edited the article, I'm not sure how to change references, many of the references are doubles; 8, 12 and 25 all point to the Lonely planet book for example. This could be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abacusbox (talk • contribs) 13:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

prince

I think bates article shud be changed 2 princepaddy roy bates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.13.183 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not, since his title is self-declared and his "princedom" is recognized by no other nation. --Pstanton (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. As Pstanton implied, the Principality of Sealand is unrecognized by any other nation regardless of its legality; thus as far as this site is concerned, Bates is not a legitimate prince. Sidenote: use proper English. Txtspeak is lazy and immature. DerekMBarnes (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support as if that's his legal Sealandic status, then it should be the page name.

Oppose Absurd, Sealand doesn't have a "Legal status". In reality, Sealand only exists because the U.K. government suffers it to exist. I can declare my dorm room to be the Imperium of Snarky Blahira, but that wouldn't make my styling myself "Imperial Majesty" any less stupid, would it? --Pstanton (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Supplement: In my opinion, the legal status of Sealand is up in the air. It depends on whether Fort Roughs was ever declared sovereign British territory before its occupation by Bates, et al., and I've seen no evidence either way. In light of this, Wikipedia cannot in good conscience "take a side" on the legitimacy of Sealand, and must therefore adhere to as neutral a point of view as possible. Sidenote: what Pstanton says is true. Britain could forcibly reacquire Fort Roughs at anytime, and probably wouldn't lose any political standing in the process. DerekMBarnes (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.118.208.164 (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture

can some1 please feature the sealand after fire picture? thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.13.183 (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

wrong name

the capital of Sealand isn't "Sealand". see here: http://www.sealandnews.com/facts/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123abcdoreme2 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, Sealand doesn't even have a "capitol".... I don't think your source is particularly valid, but I understand how it is somewhat absurd to mention a capitol. It would be like saying the capitol of Vatican City is Vatican City: ridiculously redundant. --Pstanton (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The capital of Vatican City is indeed the capital of Vatican City. Agreed its rather absurb in both examples, but does seem to have some basis in fact. Dman727 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

surely the capital of Sealand is HM Fort Roughs ? Marlarkey (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed the Pirate Bay reference

Someone had added a unreferenced comment that TPB planned to buy this after their trial; this idea has been floating (!) around since Napster was being forced to shutdown, and always fails to work simply because whatever legal nationality the island has, any isp will be based somewhere with a legal framework, courts, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.222.100 (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The story of TPB is well known, but a rewording would be great, since it was more than anything else a publicity stunt. --89.152.177.195 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Location

My chart has roughs tower at 51°53.712N 001°28.843E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.111.12 (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Constitution

Hello,

The s:Constitution of the Principality of Sealand hosted at Wikisource doesn't have a source, not a license. Further an anonymous editor questions its authenticity: s:Talk:Constitution of the Principality of Sealand. Therefore the article is proposed for deletion. See s:Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Constitution_of_the_Principality_of_Sealand. Any comments welcome. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What is happening?

Is there any way to find out what is happening with Sealand? Is it sold or not? And what about this "Kingdom of Marduk"? Who is King Marduk? Is he Johannes Seiger? Is the platform an online casino or not? What is the latest official word from the "Royal Family"? Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources

I deleted the part :

<External commentators generally classify Sealand as a micronation It has been described as the world's best-known micronation.>

since those "external commentators" where firstly <sealandnews.com> itself and secondly a book titled "Micronations" by John Ryan, who himself in his description of the book states:

"Micronations takes a curious look at some of the most curious places on the planet. Designed to generate interest in the strange world out there, this is a fully illustrated, humourous mock guidebook to the nations people create in their own backyards. (...) For lovers of humour, trivia and ephemera, this is a gift book, a reference text and a travel guide rolled into one." (source: amazon)

And looking at the other source for Sealand being "the world's best-known micronation"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22726244-5002031,00.html

I have pains finding the part where it actually states that.

Nonetheless it is still a pleasure to watch a self-proclaimed "micronation" setting up their own propaganda ministry to spread their own version of the truth around. Please don't quote the "official" "government" press office next time you want to verify a claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.61.78 (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Moved to right place (on bottom)
• refs to sealandnews.com deleted
• refs to book restored --Yopie 12:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Put something on tourism?

Should we put something about its tourism business? This and a few references in the article seem to suggest so. (That it has a tourism business, I mean.)

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c) 04:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

External commentators - dubious

currently the article states "External commentators generally classify Sealand as a micronation". I doubt that the sources says that, so can we please have a quote from the book on the talk page which backs up the statement. --PBS (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

HavenCo

That part of the article mentions a 1990-1991 court case but no mention of this case is made. --89.152.177.195 (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Murder?

Quite a fascinating article, but one question. What would happen if someone were murdered on that sea platform? The article spekas that a previous case was thrown out of court for firing a weapon at a ship. But, what would happen if someone actually killed another person? -OberRanks (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the UK has jurisdiction over the waters today, the UK would prosecute you. At the time of the shooting incident, the territorial waters did not extend out to the platform, but it has since been expanded. As far as in international waters, if you murdered someone I think the victim's nation has jurisdiction by practice. Sorry, no free passes. :-P [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Economy

according to the article, sealand's gdp is 600k... but it's not mentioned where do they get this money from. anybody knows?--camr ^nag 13:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sporting Activities

I know Slader Oviatt. What evidence would be required in order to establish that he did in fact carry the flag as stated in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.58.140 (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bring us a news-item from a reliable source (which, for example, excludes "self-published"/click on link for further info). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this link sufficient? Alberta Legislative Assembly This is a transcript from the proceedings of the Alberta Legislature as recorded on the official Hansard transcripts dated Tuesday November 24, 2009, evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotlaw8 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

This user is a Baron of Sealand

-Imagi-King (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"microstate"

Who added the mention of microstate in the lead? If this is supposed to be a precedent, then we can go ahead and add the line "considered by some to be a microstate" to every such article, since it is true for (almost) every micronation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, how many micronations can claim possible de facto recognition of countries? Outback the koala (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Principality of Hutt River for example has a letter by the then-governour of Western Australia. The Principality of Seborga claims to be the successor of a state founded in 900-something, and backs it up with historical records. --- Now... "in principle," I am not opposed to this sort of addition, but I do believe there needs to be a wider consensus concerning this. If the community can agree to the addition of "microstate" in this article, I will add the phrase to every such entity (of course, not some kid's bedroom...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The operative words above are of course "possible de facto", which is completely different from "real" recognition. A microstate has a fairly clear definition. So does micronation. We rely on what the preponderance of reliable sources say here, and I am unaware of anyone who has officially said it is a recognized microstate. But I have myself rarely if ever seen real recognition of Sealand mentioned in reliable sources, and as such I have to say that it would probably violate both POV and OR to say it is such.

I note the material in the lead calling it a microstate has recently been removed by another editor. I commend that removal because "considered by some" is an obvious violation of WP:WEASELWORDS. And, for it to be significant enough to be included in the lead, I would think that there would have to be some kind of real recognition by outside entities, and, as someone who has been in these discussions before, I have to say I really have never seen anything like sufficient to merit changing the content of this article. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Military involvement

"In 1968, the Royal Navy entered what Bates claimed to be his territorial waters in order to service a navigational buoy near the platform..."

I've just been looking into this after reading First Sealand Incident, which presents it even more emphatically - it talks about the Royal Marines, surrender demands, etc. Thing is, I strongly doubt the Navy were ever involved.

The introduction to the court ruling, which is quite clear, says:

The evidence led for the Prosecution, summarized shortly, was to the effect that while Trinity House men were attending to a buoy north west of the artificial erection called Roughs Tower: shots were fired in their direction be the second accused from a .22 pistol belonging to his father, the first accused.

"Trinity House men" are from Trinity House, a civilian authority charged with maintaining lighthouses and other shipping. No troops, no military involvement. Wired pretty much agrees; "workmen who were servicing..." and then they were later arrested on an outstanding warrant.

I've rephrased this accordingly. Shimgray | talk | 10:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also reference to the Royal Marines at HM Fort Roughs Marlarkey (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• These coordinates are wrong, they refer to a point well out in the North Sea, East of Edinburgh. I do not know the correct ones.

212.120.243.145 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• The coordinates appear to be correct. If you open them through GeoHack in WikiMapia, Google Maps, or Acme they open to the right place, but if you open them in Google Earth they come up right if you use the "w/ meta data" link, but not if you click the "open" link, for some reason I don't understand. I don't know if the problem is with Google Earth or GeoHack, but the coords are correct. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Official recognition

Bates claims official de facto recognition for Sealand, but what exactly does that mean and is it legitimate ? The claim is cited here without references. And does the claim stand up anyway ? A court can discuss all sort of things during a case but that does not amount to recoognition - especially when discussing questions of jurisdiction. And a country sending a hostage negotiator to people who have kidnapped and incarcerated their citizens cannot possibly stand up as recognition. What would count is evidence of subsequent relationship between the relevant countries eg Germany or the UK continuing to maintain an intergovernmental relationship with Sealand but there is no evidence of that. So the reference to de facto recognition should be removed. Marlarkey (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does not state that Germany has recognised Sealand. It only states that Sealand itself claims de facto recognition by Germany. Mk5384 (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mk, Sealand only claims it, this does not make it fact. Irregardless, de facto recognition is a very fickle and fliud definition to say the least; but a de facto recognition does not have to be over time, and can during a specific moment in time or during a certain period. A good example might be Somaliland, no country recognises it internationally, but other governments dialogue with it and some even maintain embassies and consulates there (like Ethiopia for instance). A negotiations, seen by Sealand as being a state to state discussion, would be de facto recognition, irregardless of what Germany thinks. Compare it to a negotiation between Cyprus and N. Cyprus, where neither officially recognise each other, but will sit in the same room and talk state to state (while both deny the other is a state). Outback the koala (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability tag

I suggest it be removed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

An anon user just removed it, and I can't say I disagree. There appears to be plenty of reliably sourced material on this subject. — Satori Son 17:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The forcibly taken over...

...section has been removed again and needs to be reliably sourced. N.b. a website written by those involved with Sealand is not reliable. raseaC^{talk to me} 11:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You might have noticed that this was partially sourced fro a book. I'll do a partial revert. (I agree the infobox is junk, esp. with the flags...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is that the bulk of the sources are from Sealand-affiliated websites. I'm not sure they constitute reliable sources. raseaC^{talk to me} 12:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on how they're cited; it can be done. I'm sort of tired right now, but I'll do more on this over the next days. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like somebody keeps restoring the section. We need to go by WP:RS. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm the 'somebody' who keeps restoring it. Reason being i don't like it when people gratuitously remove information be cause the section 'could be shorter'. Wiki should be as informative as possible and if that means making the section a little longer than it HAS to be, i don't see why not? Bully25 (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)