Talk:Principality of Sealand/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Principality of Sealand. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Territorial waters

This image is wrong, territorial waters were extended to 12nm in 1987, not 1968 (see [1] or [2]). It's true that the article is a bit misleading, and I'm going to fix the text, but I don't have the tools or time to fix the image -- can someone help? --Ma Baker 28 June 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Dispute Notices

As the abusive vandal Wik aka Gzornenplatz has been banned for the second and final time, there is no reason to maintain the spurious dispute notice that he slapped on this article as a way of inventing a controversy, so I've removed it. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to state your reasons and restore it.--Gene_poole 00:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hope the record would show that I have tried desperately to find a middle ground for this article and have fought against the polar opposites of both sides. Given that I would say this article is not horridly POV throughout and does reflect most of the relevant facts as I am aware of them. However two things do point to a problem. The infobox still somewhat supports a pro sovereignty POV, and the Legal status section is presented in such a way that it is still almost trying to present the arguments for sovereignty and dismiss those against. Nothing that couldn't be handled by restucturing it a bit. The US court case should also not be ignored even if the US does not have jurisdiction over the territory in question. Note the facts and let the reader decide. Despite needing those fixes and assuredly some others, this article is not substantially more problematic than 99% of other Wikipedia articles that don't have the dispute tag. MPLX has shown that despite volumes of vitriolic and grandiose claims he is not willing to supply any evidence or consider a middle ground. - Taxman 15:02, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Neutrality of this article is disputed

1. The article lacks common sense because it does not reflect reality.

2. The media frenzy that came and went with the HavenCo project was finally exposed by its creator Ryan Lackey who left because he claimed Bates had lied to him.

3. Lackey, like a long line of people from outside of the UK have lost money over frauds conducted in the name of this enterprise.

4. There is no such country and the installation is a part of the UK. This was settled in a US court case in which the UK played a part, Bates never challenged it.

5. Because this article tries to establish that Sealand exists because a former UK WWII sunken barge is still there, this article should be subjected to the standards of strict proof from the position of strict neutrality due to the controversy that it generates on Wikipidia among a select number of fans.

Please don't engage me in further discussion, I will post documents, references and footnotes and that is all. The only reason for this new entry is because of an attempt to now claim that the article is not in dispute when it is in dispute with reality and the UK and USA governments. I can't stop anyone from removing the neutrality tag and I won't try to reimpose it, but the article does cause harm to the credibility of Wikipedia. MPLX/MH 06:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

is an empty statement as it makes an accusation without any defended examples.
doesn't seem to have anything to do with this article, but with Sealand/Bates. Perhaps you are saying that because the media frenzy was based on empty promises that the item does not deserve an article, but this is not convention; notable hoaxes are supported on Wikipedia, and of course such articles discuss the hoax or allegations of hoax-ness of the topic. Something that stirred a media frenzy is culturally notable based on that fact alone. The cause of the frenzy surrounding a topic does not affect its place in cultural consciousness and therefore its validity as an article topic.
How does this fact make the article non-neutral?
A. I'm not aware that the U.S. has sovereignty over what you admit to be UK issues; to suggest this would certainly cause a collective shiver in British spines. B. The article does not attempt to state that the nation is legitimate. It views the matter from both sides, taking pains not to call Sealand an actual country, but acknowledging that it is purported to be, as well as acknowledging some of the proferred legal arguments for the defense of its legitimacy. Noting such arguments does not purport them to be fact. Moreover, to exclude such arguments would eliminate much of the international familiarity with Sealand, as well as answer the reader's likely question of "why does anyone go along with this?" The idea of self-determination over territory has been a romantic idea for milennia; the difference is that since the mid 20th century there is no unclaimed land in which to this. Sealand sparks the notion of that romantic dream, and this spurs many people to entertain the dream of Sealand legitimacy. Regardless, the article doesn't make any claim that Sealand is legitimate; it only relates the claims of those who think so, and opens a valid discussion of what exactly it is that we call "legitimacy."
The barge was there in 2001; Ryan Lackey has photos to prove it. Are you saying it is not there today?

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 07:21, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It has already been established that MPLX/MH is a primary source for this article, and his inclusions need to be reviewed very carefully as they are obviously coloured by a very strong anti-Sealand bias.--Centauri 08:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. MPLX is prone to making blanket declarations (such as "please don't engage me in further discussion" and "The article lacks common sense because it does not reflect reality") and posting his own original research. MPLX if you have new information to add and if you can cite verifiable sources, please do. But as it is, I think this article is mostly neutral. Rhobite 15:23, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with that sentiment. The article successfully reflects the essence of the notion of Sealand as it resides in the common consciousness. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 18:15, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Agendas

These are the latest edits to this article.

(cur) (last) 08:02, 18 Mar 2005 Centauri (delete spurious NPOV tag - this nonsense has dragged on for long enough)
cur) (last) 06:27, 18 Mar 2005 MPLX (This article is totally out of step with reality and its neutrality is disputed)
(cur) (last) 04:59, 18 Mar 2005 Josh Parris m (→HavenCo - disamb hacking)
(cur) (last) 00:07, 18 Mar 2005 Gene Poole (remove dispute notice - there is no longer any dispute)

Please observe that Gene Poole who I am convinced is Centauri by another User Name removed the dispute notice on March 18. I restored it on the same day. It has now been removed by Cenauri (Gene Poole) who has also continued his habit of making this into a personal attack against me, rather than discussing the facts of the article. It is for that reason that I will not engage in "discussions" on this Talk page.

I have also observed that after Gene Poole disappeared from the scene due to a dispute with others, Centauri appeared and a gradual reincorporation of all of the old POV stuff has been carried out to once again render especially the side bar illustrations and chart totally absurd. The law is stated quite clearly on the Legal history of Sealand which Gene Poole / Centauri wishes to have deleted and Rhobite who is siding with Gene Poole / Centauri here, has placed a Neutrality dispute tag on that article which I have not removed. That article contains many legal citations and unique references.

Many claims have been made on this article concerning the date of the extension of UK territorial waters in 1987, but if you will observe, the UK had the right to do that from before Bates threw off the first squatters (Bates was not the first). Also on that article is an external link to the site of an offshore fan who has taken many excellent photographs of offshore stations and he also took them of the inside and outside of Rough Tower. His photographs include a shot of BRITISH officers going by under the Tower, and of the BRITISH buoy marked Rough Tower. There are details of court cases and there are also details of the many attempts by Bates to test his luck only to fail with every project (radio/TV/computers), because all he was doing (he is no longer there) is squatting on a former WWII UK sunken barge sitting on UK territory. When Ryan Lackey discovered that Bates had lied to him about the US case concerning the legal situation concerning Rough Tower - he quit and denounced Bates as a liar on his own web site and a press conference, all of which is thoroughly documented.

In the past I have offered to answer specific requests for specific information. That offer still stands. But because I love Wikipedia I will not engage in either revert wars or slagging matches. Like Jack Webb I only want the facts and the article on this page is based upon fantasy. (If it says that, I will withdraw many of my objections.) MPLX/MH 16:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you one final time to please refrain from further off-topic rants. If you wish to make oddball accusations, then produce your evidence. If you persist in this nonsense I will initiate an RfC on your behaviour. Consider yourself warned. --Centauri 22:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HavenCo doesn't use its own services

By using standard network utilities, it can be determined that currently (Apr 2005) the site www.havenco.com isn't hosted in Sealand, but somewhere in United States. This make me wonder: do they have any customers at all? This can have two possible explanations:

1) Services of HavenCo are of such a poor quality, that they don't want to expose it. Or they have no services at all (no customers so far).

2) HavenCo wants to protect their customers not only by concealing of their identities, but also by concealing the fact itself these sites are hosted by it. If we knew that www.havenco.com is in Sealand, we would know that any site having same route as www.havenco.com is hosted by HavenCo. This sounds reasonable. But, how a potential customer could check a quality of the service? It seems that there is no way to do it except by paying the full price.

And here is a question to the public. Have you ever heard about any site hosted by HavenCo? Crocodealer

From what I checked on the main HavenCo website, it has not been updated in over two years (last date was 11 March 2003). Is there anything else yall need? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

www.havenco.com was set up before sealand had internet connectivity. since sealand's speed at maximum was 4Mbps, we kept the web server offsite. the current sealand hosted servers would all be in 217.64.32.0/20 (www.cracks.am is a good example) and I believe there is currently no connection out to Sealand, but rather a machine in London masquerading as being on Sealand, due to the ping times -- the london hop to the sealand hop is shorter than it would be if speed-of-light were being respected. not too surprising though. Ryan 20:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I know of two very popular sites hosted with havenco: thegoldcasino.com and dbourse.com. Both work just fine. Search 4 Lancer 20:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Status of wrecks

Why are wrecks excluded, say from UNCLOS? Where did the distinction between wrecks and other artificial islands come from?

On that note, a user removed this "The Montevideo Convention also specifically excludes the use of man made structures as the basis for territorial claims." saying it was redundant. It's not redundant, it directly conflicts with this "although it is unclear if man-made structures can, or were ever intended to constitute territory under the Convention's terms." that was left in the article. Anyone have a way of knowing which is right? - Taxman ^Talk June 29, 2005 13:44 (UTC)

Title of Sealand infobox

In keeping with the style of other territory articles, the quotation marks around "Principality of Sealand" should be removed, as should the line "self-declared unrecognised state". These topics are deliberated at length in the article itself, and should not be in the infobox title; the case is similar to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the Government of Tibet in Exile, which are both unrecognised political entities. -Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 5 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

NoPuzzleStranger, there is no other example of this style of infobox in the Wikipedia. The politics of Sealand are made clear in the infobox itself and throughout the article. The quotation marks in question are not part of the official name as asserted by the Bates family, so their presence is unwarranted and confusing - a similar case occured with using "(Republic of) Ireland" instead of "Ireland" (that state's official constitutional name). --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 5 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

This is not a "territory". It's a "micronation". Of course there is no other example of this style elsewhere, because so far as I know there is no comparable entity (i.e. "micronation") which even has an infobox. I think this one shouldn't have an infobox either, but if it's there, it has to be made obvious that this is not an entity like all the others where the same kind of infobox is used (i.e. real countries, or real "disputed territories" like Northern Cyprus etc.), otherwise it would seem to imply that this is in any way a real thing. NoPuzzleStranger July 8, 2005 01:08 (UTC)

I don't see why a micronation may not occupy territory, and your usage of the word "real" here is unclear. The platform does currently exist, has been inhabited by Bates and his family, and has been the subject of court cases. The function of the Wikipedia is to present and discuss information, not to spin it; the extra changes do this to the infobox. I also fail to see why an infobox is not appropriate. As Centauri pointed out, micronations are necessarily self-declared and unrecognised. The use of quotation marks can indicate merely a proper name or can imply spuriousness of content. Proper names are not given quotation marks in Wikipedia infoboxes: see Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (movie), France, Coors Brewing Company. Implying the content is questionable is not appropriate - see the Republic of Ireland example above. Thus the changes are not beneficial. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 8 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

If it were actually occupying territory, it wouldn't be a micronation. But the tower is squarely within British waters (as recognized by the whole world) and there's no question Britain is capable of exercising its sovereignty over it (e.g. by, if there were any particular reason to, going there and arresting Bates or whoever may be there). The tower might as well be on land, in some unused wilderness - if someone were to occupy that and declare it a state, that wouldn't make it so. I could just as well declare my own living room a state (and then point out that the outside government is not coming to stop my secession, and therefore it must implicitly recognize me - that seems to be Sealand's logic). An infobox is not appropriate for any such fictions; those infoboxes are for real countries. To use it in this case therefore requires quotation marks, because there is no country called Principality of Sealand. There is only a "micronation", which is something entirely different - it's by definition a "pretended" country: self-declared, not recognized by anyone, nor exercising de facto power over a territory. So, in the context of a regular country infobox, it is spurious. NoPuzzleStranger July 8, 2005 03:39 (UTC)

I don't remember where, but I've read somewhere that the waters weren't British when Sealand was founded. --Easyas12c 23:15, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

It's discussed at length in the article, and it is is true.--Centauri 23:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Sealand is entirely unrecognized. The reverts asserting that "unrecognized" is not part of the name are spurious. It doesn't matter if it is part of the name and writing it there isn't even saying it is part of the name anyway. But that doesn't necessarily decide the issue. The real problem is that having the infobox (as other recognized countries would) basically asserts that it is legitimate. Further the claims in the infobox like "sovereign" and "head of goverment" are improperly used, since by anyone's definition but Sealand's those are not correct. Allowing only one POV to be represented is improper. As I have said before, having the text tell us that Sealand is not recognized, and then having an infobox that makes it look like it is official is POV.

And by the way, I won't do it because I've entered the debate, but stopping this little revert war by protecting the page according to policy would protect it at the version in place before this revert war started. But in any case, please stop all the reverts until there is consensus on the talk page. When are people going to learn, reverts don't help anything unless to remove vandalism. - Taxman ^Talk July 8, 2005 14:02 (UTC)

I am not trying to argue that Sealand's claim is valid - my statement above was only meant to explain how that information is already put across in the opening line of the article. The dispute is merely one of style. If we were to have an article about a fictional planet in Star Trek, for example (say Bajor), and the page had an infobox, it would not be necessary to include similar information in the title of that infobox. It should be clear from the article itself that it is not an actual planet. Similarly with this article.

Taxman, as a rule I do not engage in edit wars - examine my contributions, I don't recall having one before. The problem was that, in this case, I found that NoPuzzleStranger was unwilling to discuss the matter on the talk page; examine the time and date of my first posts in this section and those of my posts on his talk page. At least twice on his user page, NoPuzzleStranger states that he only uses talk pages when he feels that the content is too long to go into the edit summary; he seems to have judged this to be the case here, until yesterday. Since edit summaries were the only way he would respond, I used edit summaries and reversions to coerce him into discussing the matter; perhaps that's a little selfish of me considering confusion to the edit history, perhaps I should have requested mediation, but I wanted to at least discuss the matter with NoPuzzleStranger first. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 8 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

A whole bunch of suggestions

First, delete and/or move the whole bollox to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense.

Second, if it must be kept, carve it up into:

Roughs Tower - about the fortress itself
Bates family - about the hijinx of Bates and his self-styled monarchy.
Sealand - a tiny article about the micronation

Let us not encourage these people by treating them "the same as any other nation". But let us not fall into the equall and opposite error of asserting that "they are not a nation". This is a fairly good test of NPOV policy. Let's try and pass the test. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 18:45 (UTC)

I seriously disagree with deleting the article - it is notable enough (court cases, a Wired article about HavenCo, passport scandals). It should not be an aim to make the article "tiny" on the basis of it being "bollox" in your words, nor should one worry about "encouraging these people"; if information is noteable and relevant, then it should be included, if not, then remove it.. But I agree with your idea of dividing the article into Roughs Tower, Bates family and Sealand - gun platforms of the type of Roughs Tower merit their own articles on the basis of being erstwhile naval ships alone, and there is not enough material for the Bates family to have individual articles.--Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 8 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's already rudimentary articles about the Maunsell Sea Forts (which is what Rough Tower was built as) and their designer, Guy Maunsell. Any suggestion that the current article be dismembered on the basis of the eccentric and seemingly uninformed personal opinions of a minority of editors need not be a cause for much serious concern; this argument has been revisited many times over preceding years, and the general consensus is that Sealand is more than sufficiently historically notable to merit its own extensive article.--Centauri 9 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

Suggest that Roughs Towers and Sealand be seperate but the Bates Family info remains in here Robdurbar 20:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Definitely agreed there. At a minimum they do not warrant their own article as they have done nothing important outside of Sealand. For the same reason, I'm not sure Roughs tower needs it's own article, but I'm not broken up over it if there is. I just don't see that there is enough verifiable information to warrant an article. - Taxman ^Talk 22:35, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The Roughs Tower article was created by MPLX as a result of what seemed to me at the time to be a longstanding personal grudge of some sort against Roy Bates, waged as a campaign of misinformation on Wikipedia. While the content is accurate, it does in large part repeat information in the Sealand article, and I feel that it should really be summarised and merged into the Maunsell Sea Forts article. The Bates family are intrinsically linked to Sealand, and are not notable beyond their association with it, so a separate article about them is not appropriate.--Centauri 23:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I actually think these suggestions make some sense. The history of the fort is:

It was built for defence
It was abandoned
It was settled by squatters
It was settled by Bates
Bates founded Sealand

The sections on stamps/coins and the legal position have nothing to do with the tower. They are to do with bates warped sense of reality (POV). There are several people who seem to recognise the bates soverignity however majority popular opinion does not. This article represents sealand as a real state, it is not recognise by anyone who has power over what is a real state.

Sorry to wade in, however this article does not appear to represent a neutral point of view. jameselliot 1.20 (GMT) 29 Oct 2005

coup

Cut from text:

coup d'état

It's only a coup if there was already a nation there. Since that is disputed, we can't call it this. Bates can call it that, if he wants. Anyone got a quote we can use? Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Big revert

I'm reluctant to make big reversions, but I got a note on my talk page implying that everything I've done to Sealand and related articles has ignored consensus, etc. on this talk page.

Yet somebody went ahead and reverted all my changes, ~~without leaving a single comment on this talk page - that I could see.~~ If I have overlooked (a) his comments or (b) some previous consensus, please forgive me. The last note I saw told me to go ahead. Uncle Ed 15:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oops! I just now saw some comments made by Centauri above. I may have made an error. If so, please forgive me. Uncle Ed 15:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Although the ROughs Towers page should contain msot of its history, SOME is needed to understand context. At the moment, hisotry begins 'In 1978...'; Sealnad was first inhabited by the Bates' in 1967!! Am moving part of teh stuff backRobdurbar 16:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sovereignty

it seams to me that most of the stuff on the Montivideo Convention and constiutative theroy and various other things could be removed as are contaiend on the relevant pages describing these theroys/convetions etc.? Robdurbar 19:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As long as enough material is kept here to make this discussion clear. The reader shouldn't be required to read a separate article to get a basic idea of how those things affect this one. But they also shouldn't be subjected to 8 paragraphs on things not relating to the topic at hand. By that rationale I don't see too much that can be removed, but if you think you can summarize without losing what is necessary here, go for it. - Taxman ^Talk 20:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

For the same reason, and the fact that micronation does mean something very different from the common understanding, the explanatory phrase really should stay. - Taxman ^Talk 03:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Micronation" is a neologism that has only ever had one meaning, and the "common understanding" is exactly in alignment with it, as evidenced by dozens, if not hundreds of recorded usages in the media over a decade or more. The editor who keeps inserting the redundant information seems to be deliberately confusing it with microstate, which has an entirely different dictionary-defined meaning. --Centauri 03:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is, you shouldn't have to read another article and know the definition of the word to understand this article, especially in this case where the word has a very different meaning from what the common understanding of it would be. Please stop removing it until you get consensus here. Lots of things are somewhat redundant, it's called context, and is important for any work that is aimed at a broad audience as wikipedia is. - Taxman ^Talk 13:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Taxman on this one, the article reads better with the deifintion in. Robdurbar 15:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You say that like it's an exception! Everyone should always agree with me of course :) - Taxman ^Talk 15:56, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

microstate is an extremely misleading word and most certainly needs explanation. Better still, lets do without such a jargon word.Dejvid 17:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A spokesman for Sealand called it a microstate (see Talk:Sealand/emails). Uncle Ed 16:25, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Outside Communication

This was recently added:

The UK Government regulates communications and requires records from computer servers located on Sealand. Data transfer from Sealand has to be sent by the relatively slow method of satellite link to a member country of the United Nations where data is then inspected according to the laws of that country, mainly because Sealand is not recognized by ICANN as a country and it does not have its own separate identity apart from the United Kingdom...

There is no source for this info. What is the source? I am reverting it out, as I know some of it is incorrect. It appears that Sealand is connected to London via E1 or something similar.

Well you need reliable evidence that it is incorrect to support taking the whole thing out. You don't just get to take information hostage by claiming it is incorrect. If you can't provide evidence, the material should be put back in. - Taxman ^Talk 18:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you don't get to just included whatever without providing some sort of source. The burden is on the person providing the info not the other way around. For what it's worth, the way I see it (and I have a box there) either 1) Sealand is connected to London via something much faster than a satellite connection (such as T1/E1) or 2) they are actually serving from a London data center as Ryan suggests above. Jebba 18:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That text has been in there for quite a while, so you carry just as much burden to justify your edits as the person that added the material. Minimum courtesy would be to provide that when you remove it. That said, there are two problems with your evidence: 1) you don't even know if the box is really on Sealand, or if it is somewhere else. I thought Havenco wasn't operating from the Roughs tower location anymore. 2) Your evidence is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. So you'll have to come up with something a bit more reliable than a cut and paste of some pings/traceroutes. I don't know where the original material came from, and I'm fine with it being out if there is some reliable evidence it is incorrect. - Taxman ^Talk 20:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the text had been there for awhile. It was re-introduced in a recent edit, so I incorrectly presumed it was new. I apologize for that. If you would like to revert it back in, feel free, but I doubt its accuracy. I believe I have provided enough information to at least cast some doubt on the accuracy of the paragraph.

As for the original research, you are correct. ;) But I didn't put it in the article itself either. I do believe it is valuable for the discussion as it is one of the few ways to actually see what is going on. Full access to a box that is supposedly located there is about as reliable as it gets. Jebba 21:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case, no worries if you didn't know it had been there for a long time. But what makes you think the box is located there? - Taxman ^Talk 21:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

What makes me think the box is located there is that it is /supposed/ to be located there, since I have a contract with Havenco and on their page it says their data center is in Sealand. If it is /not/ located there, then Havenco is being fraudulent. Jebba 21:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Pings/traceroutes

Since I actually have a box which is supposedly on Sealand, I did some pings/traceroutes, the output of which is below. From these, we should be able to establish whether the Sealand boxes are actually on Sealand, and roughly what the connection is. I'm quite certain it is not a satellite link. Either they have decent bandwidth (e.g. E1 or multiple E1) or the boxes themselves are sitting in London. To prove I have a box there, I put a note up for wikipedians at http://taz.blagblagblag.org Traceroutes to/from the boxes are different. Tracing from my workstation to Sealand the last hops are:

8 ge-10-0.ipcolo1.London1.Level3.net (212.187.131.7) 115.637 ms ge-9-0.ipcolo1.London1.Level3.net (212.187.131.147) 118.240 ms ge-10-0.ipcolo1.London1.Level3.net (212.187.131.7) 115.190 ms

9 80.253.124.55 (80.253.124.55) 114.751 ms 114.870 ms 114.811 ms

10 host35146.havenco.net (217.64.35.146) 114.270 ms 114.833 ms 115.532 ms

Traceroute from Sealand out:

1 vlan-35-144.havenco.net (217.64.35.145) 0.319 ms 0.289 ms 0.259 ms

2 217.163.4.33 (217.163.4.33) 0.931 ms 0.866 ms 0.953 ms

3 ae-0-54.bbr2.London1.Level3.net (212.187.131.146) 0.865 ms 1.71 ms 1.37 ms

Pings to the second hop (presumably the first hop off the LAN) using the IP addr that appears in outgoing traces. The IP addr, which doesn't have reverse DNS, is owned by http://www.packetexchange.net/ which is a provider of fiber connections:

$ ping -q -c 100 217.163.4.33

PING 217.163.4.33 (217.163.4.33): 56 data bytes

--- 217.163.4.33 ping statistics ---

100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0.0% packet loss

round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 0.726/1.042/1.599/0.159 ms

Pings to the third hop, using the IP addr that appears in outgoing traces. This IP addr is owned by Level 3 and resolves to ae-0-54.bbr2.London1.Level3.net.

$ ping -q -c 100 212.187.131.7

PING 212.187.131.7 (212.187.131.7): 56 data bytes

--- 212.187.131.7 ping statistics ---

100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0.0% packet loss

round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 0.668/0.962/1.455/0.158 ms

Pings to the second hop, using the IP addr that appears in incoming traceroutes. The IP addr, which doesn't have reverse DNS, is owned by packetexchange:

$ ping -q -c 100 80.253.124.55

PING 80.253.124.55 (80.253.124.55): 56 data bytes

--- 80.253.124.55 ping statistics ---

100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0.0% packet loss

round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 0.169/0.289/0.474/0.082 ms

Pings to the third hop, using the IP addr that appears in incoming traces. The address resolves to ge-10-0.ipcolo1.London1.Level3.net.

$ ping -q -c 100 212.187.131.146

PING 212.187.131.146 (212.187.131.146): 56 data bytes

--- 212.187.131.146 ping statistics ---

100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0.0% packet loss

round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 0.846/1.819/33.032/3.780 ms

Have fun. :) Jebba 19:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nomination

Moved to top of page by: hydnjo talk 20:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

September 27 Reverts

Because Rivarez has twice reverted my edits without comment, I will be reinserting them one-by-one, with edit comments for each incremental change. This should allow useful discussion to take place -O^O 18:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Rivarez. I see you reverted all my edits again, without comment. If you would like, you can review the history of this article to see the reason for each individual change, in case you would like to discuss them. Since it has been over an hour since you reverted my edits, and since you haven't posted any comment since then, I'm going to proceed with continuing to edit the article now. -O^O 20:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Information Template

Discussion of template moved to template talk:Sealand table

Why remove the table?

The table allows for allows one to see the information they're looking for at a glance, without having to scan over the entire article. Please also explain your issues with the article's state of NPOV. 24ip | lolol 01:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The table suggests this is a country. We've had this before. Likewise the POV issues are self-evident, like the mention that Germany hasn't denied it has recognized Sealand. Well, Germany hasn't denied the Earth is flat either. Why should Germany deny something no sane person would claim anyway? The diplomat was accredited to the United Kingdom and dealt with the Bateses as private British citizens. Rivarez 02:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the creation of infoboxes specifically for unrecognised countries, secession movements and micronatons here. --Gene_poole 02:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rivarez, I just noticed your comments here. I'm sure we can make this article completely NPOV if we work together. Using your flat-earth theory, it would be completely NPOV to comment "Germany has not commented on the flat-earth theory". It would be POV to say "Despite many opportunities to do so, Germany has not confirmed the flat-earth theory". One way simply remarks on Germany's silence, the other way leads the reader to a certain conclusion. For some reason, you rejected the earlier version I proposed with the language "has not commented", which was what let me to try "neither confirmed nor denied" to find something you would be happier with. -O^O 13:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

How to cite "generally"

Pjacobi asked "What do you expect as a citation for something generally asserted?" - Hi Pjacobi, you can find a good explanation of how to do these citations at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. As an example, you could write something like Noam Chomsky, in his book All about Sealand, wrote "its claims to sovereignty and legitimacy are generally not taken seriously" -O^O 15:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never read any newspaper article or on-line news site, which did take Sealands claims to sovereignty and legitimacy seriously. I can't cite non-quotes. Claims that the moon is made of green cheese are generally not taken seriously by the scientific community is another such statements which cannot be backed up by an actual quote. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. That someone would acknowledge sovereignty and legitimacy of Sealand would be rather strange. Please provide evidence for this. If no evidence can be unearthed, we can legitimately state: its claims to sovereignty and legitimacy are generally not taken seriously. And I don't mean acknowledgements by the crackpot link exchange community. --Pjacobi 15:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Why the reverts?

Just what is POV about this version? What are your objections? 24ip | lolol 23:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Mainly the points mentioned above: the misleading claim that Germany has "not denied" the absurd idea that it recognizes Sealand; and the removal of the indubitable fact that Sealand's "claims to sovereignty and legitimacy are generally not taken seriously". FRivar 23:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Protected

...to help editors cool off from the current edit war. Please work out your differences here on the talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I vote for the table. Gives you a nice at-a-glance summary of the claims made. --Billpg 11:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It may be convenient, but it is horridly against the NPOV policy. See my comment on the template talk page here. - Taxman ^Talk 12:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised to return and find this article protected. My opinion, although I may be wrong, was that the revert war was over a separate set of changes than the template. I thought progress was being made on the template. As long as we are "voting", I vote to keep the template, but edit the contents of the template. - O^O 02:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I also support retention of an edited version of the infobox, and have added comments concerning my views on this subject at the template talk page. The edit warring by Wik's sockpuppets largely concerned the infobox. Wik has "issues" with infoboxes. --Gene_poole 13:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems like most of the folks here talking are agreeing. The folks with issues aren't. So, if you have a real consensus, then I'm going to lift the protection; if someone tries to force their version through then it seems to me like you have enough editors watching this page to deal with the necessary reverting. If anybody objects to having the page unprotected, let me know -- otherwise it's coming off today. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with unprotecting, as long as it doesn't lead to removal of the crucial its claims to sovereignty and legitimacy are generally not taken seriously. In contrast the allegeded recognition by Germany, which is totally unfounded, needs further editing work. --Pjacobi 19:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. Encourage everybody to keep talking. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I RFP'ed this, as it is on my watchlist and I was seeing a lot of RV activity over the course of days. Clearly the talk page was not being used to hammer out differences, and the article was taking the fallout. Thanks to Katefan for the short-term protect, which hopefully was just what was needed to force everyone to work it out in the right place. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor Edits Please

Can the following edits be considered please upon unprotection? 1) Remove my birthdate (Ryan Donald Lackey, 17 March 1979...). It seems irrelevant and redundant given that there is a link to a bio article for me.

2) replace "not taken seriously" to "not accepted" or "not accepted as valid by States and other international organizations" or "not accepted as sufficient". "seriously" is a bit non-NPOV. not accepted is an accurate statement of fact based on the responses of other countries, the UN, UPU, ITU, etc.

3) The UK company incorporation was actually for UK operations. The global corporation was registered in Anguilla (a caribbean island) in 1999/2000). The Cyprus corporation became registered later. If anyone would like to check on the legal status of the Cypriot corporation they are welcome to do so.

I have documents which I will happily provide to wikimedia for linking once this article becomes unprotected.Ryan Lackey

I disagree with #2. By and large, Sealand is not taken seriously, and the article should reflect that. Tempshill 19:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of walking in to a debate, I have to disagree. "not accepted" seems to be NPOV. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If we're taking votes, I prefer "not accepted as valid by States and other international organizations". Simple statement of facts. But any of the above is IMO better than the "not taken seriously" comment. --Billpg 21:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI: Current language is "its claims to sovereignty and legitimacy are not recognized by any traditional States" -O^O

Unprotection

Does everyone feel like this article can be unprotected again? It's been protected for 10 days now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well clearly that didn't help. Some people have too much time on their hands. In any case, I'll restate that I believe the infobox is irreparably POV and I dispute the neutrality of the article with it in it. I had placed the NPOV dispute tag but it got lost somewhere along the edit war. I won't revert the article though because I believe that is a waste of time. Even this could be worked out amicably if people would be willing to be reasonable. It appears some are not, so I suppose the article should be protected again. - Taxman ^Talk 03:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The only editor causing the disruption is Wik and his gazillion sockpuppet army. Surely something can be done to lock out his IP ranges permanently? --Centauri 07:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why a simple infobox is "irreparably POV"? The only POV I see here are those editors (some of whom are vandals and their sock puppets) who INSIST on removing it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Some editors feel that including a fact box makes it look like a "real country". That's why a new fact box has been developed by a group of us to use specifically in articles about micronations and other politically dubious entities. The new one is nothing like the country fact box template. It overtly states that the "entity" is a micronation, and uses words like "membership" and "leadership" and "purproted structure" to further emphasise this. This is similar to the fact boxes used for schools and companies. --Centauri 09:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Then by all means add this wonderful new template. But let's let the old one stay until then. Whether we should regard Sealand as a "nation" or not is discussed in the article and debated here and elsewhere. But the fact is they THINK they are a nation. So what great harm is there in simply presenting their national trappings as basic, factual information. One key measure of Sovereignty is whether or not a nation can maintain its borders. By this criterion, Sealand is just as much a nation as Vatican city, Monaco or Andorra. And MORE of a nation than the United States, Mexico, Iraq or France. The only difference is, of course, they are larger and have been around longer.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

That's the point. The factbox that's there now IS the new template. It's also currently on half a dozen other micronation articles too. Nothing need change. --Centauri 11:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I trust it is. Defending Sealand from vandals is hard enough without also having to fend off PoV warriors. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It must be the season for POV warriors. If this subject interests you, you might want to look at what's going on over at Dominion of Melchizedek and Empire of Atlantium too. Rational opinions seem to be in short supply. --Centauri 13:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

LE SIGH. I find it bemusing so many seek out controversy in such small nations, when the much larger ones are responsible for creating much greater problems.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

POV waring is in the eye of the beholder. Read again what you wrote. I don't pretend to know what your POV is but "much larger ones are responsible for creating much greater problems" is certainly revealing especially as in this case the virtual state lies within the territory of democratic country unlike some others states that do indeed have the power to do far more harm than Sealand could even dream about. I hope you don't take this the wrong way - I'm not criticizing you for havving a POV but for kidding yourself that you don't have oneDejvid 14:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for stating the obvious while missing my point completely. Of course I have a POV..so do YOU, so does EVERYONE. My point was that maybe...just maybe...we should have a little PERSPECTIVE on our POVs. Instead of expending time and energy debating the merits of a micronation, including whether or not it even is a "state" per se, maybe we should be worried a bit more about what the MACROSTATES (including my own) are doing to screw up the planet. Or better still, discussing whether the concept of the nation-state istelf is still relevent given the growing power of NGOs, Super-national organizations, Regional psuedo-states(Hello EU) and transnational corporations (Not to mention other non-state actors such as Al Queda). Or is the Nation-state concept, itself, a dangerous anarchronism. BUZZ..sorry you did'nt win, but thanks for playing our game :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

First, what I wrote was prompted by you banding the term POV warrior a little higher up. You have in your reply very clearly demonstrated how your POV - that nation is outdated and, incidentally, "a bad thing"TM influences you. If you think that the claims of all nation states are a little spurious then it is quite logical that you should think that a spurious claim like that of Sealand has as much of a right to be taken seriously. It is interesting you bring up Al Queda. Al Queda has a lot in common with virtual states with dubious claims to sovereignty. It makes a claim to be the nucleus of a new khalifate. It just makes a claim to too vast an area and kills too many people to be covered by the term micro. Where do you live? I suspect it's America - anyway clearly somewhere the nation state can be taken for granted and so it is easy to be romantic about the break down of the nation state. Whatever, whether you or I like it or not Al Queda is indeed a serious challenge to the nation state. However Sealand isn't. When push comes to shove, Bates knows he would be unwise to do anything that seriously violates British law.Dejvid 19:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What I meant by a POV Warrior is someone who tries to inject their own PoV into an article, while simultaneously denouncing anyone who disgrees with them as being PoV. I did not accuse you of any such thing. Why should I? If you find offence in the term, then it must be for other reasons known only to you. Second, if ANYONE should be open to the real dangers of the Nation-State and the bigotry it breeds, it should be someone familar with the Balkans, which has been repeatedly drenched in blood by nationalistic hatreds. What is Sealand compared to Bosnia or Kosovo?! I suppose Sealand's problem is it is too small to be taken seriously yet too large and well known to be taken as a joke. Perhaps because Iam, as you accuse but through no fault of my own, an American, I admire what Bates and his clan are trying to do and I certainly respect their right to try. I'm hoping they and their desendants will be around as an interesting footnote to history long after Bin Laden and his dark chapter are closed.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure who you were accusing of being a POV warrior so I may have jumped to conclusions there. I just don't see much evidence for it in looking thru the discussion. I see you you've been checking out my homepage. It is precisely because I'v livved in the former Yugoslavia and know a bit about what happens when a nation state collapses that I hav come to appreciate why nation states that function are very important despite their faults. It suited some local apparachicks to destroy the state - the raw nationalism was merely the means and the result. And the people you did the killings and the expulsions were often DIY militias rather than the formal agents of the state. I wasn't "accusing" you of being American. My point was that you should value a little more the fact you live in a state that functions. My friends back in Croatia have livved thru what happens when a state fails. IMHO it is very fortunate that Croatia now again functions as a state. In other parts of the world the state failure has been permanent. Not pretty.

I'm curious to know what you think Bates et al are doing though, and why you think it is admirable. Harmless is about the best that I would have thought one could say about Bates Dejvid 00:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Or at least, as Douglas Adams wrote, "Mostly Harmless". :> But I do respect Bates because he wants to live free, on his own terms and without harming anyone else (unless, of course, they try to harm him first). Perhaps he does crave recognition and attention a bit much at times (Hey, it can get lonely and boring out there in the North sea:) but for the most part he merely wants to be left alone. As someone who lives in a large, often psychotic, country which seems to teeter between being a Nightwatchman state when it comes to social justice and economic fairness, a Nanny state on issues of personal freedom and privacy and a Theocracy regarding moral issues and lifestyle choices, I can appreciate that. You forget, also, that America is not immune to internal conflicts or breakdowns. There was a small affair from 1861-1865, in which more Americans (military and civilians alike) were killed than in all our other wars combined...and at the hands of their own, former, supposed countrymen. Including some of my ancestors. In parts of this country, memories of the Civil war are very much alive. And not just as dramatic reenactments either. As in Yugoslavia, it was also the product of local politicians and hotheads who used States' Right and Abolition as their causus beli. Of course in Yugo, there was also the large power vaccum left by Marshal Tito's (former Croatian BTW) death. The Party was the belt which held the country together and Tito was the buckle. His greatest failures were not to build strong government insitutions outside of the party structure (a pair of "suspenders" if you will:), and not to select a worthy sucessor(s) as strongman. At least Bates has taken care of those problems, but, of course, his "country" is far smaller a less diverse. Which is how he likes it..so I say more power to him, E Mare Libertas :>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The changes to the template Centauri noted above are steps in the right direction, but it's still POV in current form. The most egregious problems are using "currency" and the heading, but the sum total adds up to still supporting Sealand's POV. Currency is incorrect because it is not fungible nor accepted by anyone outside of Sealand, therefore it is not a currency, and stating it as if it is is POV. Next, repeating the heading Principality of Sealand in the template after it has just said in text in the lead is basically giving prominence to the claim that it is a principality, which is a minority position. There's nothing wrong with stating that claim, but giving it prominence when it is a small minority claim is POV. So I'm not saying we shouldn't state Sealand's claims, because it does appear to be a fact that they do make them and that some people believe them or like the idea of it, but giving those claims undue prominence as if they are not a small minority position is POV. So a few ideas to fix that: The heading, should go, it's redundant with the text, currency has got to go, and it's not an important claim anyway. Class: Micronation should go above location. Consider putting the motto at the bottom. Not only would this add interest to the end but it would balance the template well. The problem as it is now, with the heading the flag, seal and motto all there and together is it supports the claim of sovereignty. So I would place the POV tag, but as long as it's being discussed, I don't see an urgent need to add it or edit war over it. - Taxman ^Talk 14:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion removing the heading is not a good idea. The "Principality of Sealand" may not be accepted as such by the world, but that's how it presents itself to the world - and that's how it is known to the world at large. Far more people have heard of Sealand than will ever know of Roughs Tower - and if they do hear of the latter at all it is almost always because they've heard about it via the "principality". Moving the micronation category up to sit directly below the heading is, however, a good idea, as there can then be no confusion about the actual status of the "principality". Including the currency is an important detail - particularly to those of us who are numismatists. Micronation currencies may not be fungible, however they are widely documented in the numismatic press throughout the world - however I think changing the terminology to "purported currency" is appropriate. --Gene_poole 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course that's how it presents itself, and therefore giving that view prominence is POV. That's the whole problem. I've already made it clear I'm not saying the article shouldn't note Sealand's claims where appropriate, but giving it undue prominence as the table does is a problem; the article already has it immediately to the left of the table. Repeating it in the table is redundant and POV. I'd compromise on purported currency or something similar because it is not by any commonly accepted defiinition an actual currency. Any prominent group could mint a coin and collectors would collect it for interest sake. That does not make it a currency. I made the changes I'm talking about to the template to show you what they look like. I really think the template loses nothing without the heading. Since it wasn't a consensus change, I'm ok with it being changed back, but I think you should consider the merits of what I'm talking about. Also I'm not good with the box tags so it will have to be fixed anyway. - Taxman ^Talk 23:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is wholly about the entity that is known as the "principality of sealand", and I cannot see how listing the name of the entity is anything other than NPOV, given that it is not known as anything other than that. The same principle applies to info boxes for schools and companies. The commonly accepted name of the entity or organisation is the one that heads the info box. --Gene_poole 01:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur fully with Gene_poole. Vehimently stating Sealand is not a country is just as POV as saying it is. Present the facts and arguements from both sides, then allow readers to decide for themselves. To this end, I believe the article accomplishes this with, at most, the need for only minor edits/additions.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You're straw manning. I never said vehemently anything of that sort. Please re-read what I wrote. Also, if you re-read the NPOV policy you'll reallize that presenting minority positions as if they are facts is POV. Sealand being sovereign is a small minority position. And again, I'm not saying we shouldn't report their views, just that we shouldn't give that view undue prominence, which the heading does. And again, it's redundant anyway. Nothing would be lost if it was not there, and a lot would be gained in moving towards neutrality. Seriously try it without it for a couple days, the article wouldn't miss a thing. But moving the type of entity near the top was a big improvement, as is that wording. That's about as neatral of wording as possible for that bit, good job there. - Taxman ^Talk 14:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No, our debate here seems to center around what constitutes "undue prominence". And since the table seems to be such a big bone of contention, I decided to BE BOLD and modify it. You will find the header now simply states (no pun intended) in BIG letters SEALAND FACTS . And underneath the column where it defines what type of entity Sealand is, I added Official Name:Principality of Sealand. (Note, unbolded, plain text. The main problem I see with that is that someone might take exception to the word "Official". In which case I will remove it and simply have Name. But let's try this instead for a couple days. My own PoV (ohh ahh Double plus unmutual! Thoughtcriminal! :) is that Sealand may not be a nation. But they have the right to regard themselves as such. The article should respect this to a reasonable extent. And, might I add, just because an opinion is held by a minority does'nt make it automatically wrong.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The Box

The fact that you need to explain that the box is not a country box illustrates how anyone not paying attention (probably most Wiki readers) would assume it was the same box. But the real problem is that you expect to see a table hard facts, statistics and the like, that are beyond dispute. Pretty much everything about Sealand is in dispute. There are some things that are not appropriate to put in boxes. I'm not just thinking about this case. Battle boxes with casualty figures are another example. Pretty much all casualty figures for many battles (all?) before 1500 are at best educated guesses, at worst fantasy.Dejvid 14:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)