Talk:Principality of Sealand/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Questions

I have some questions about Sealand, which are much more pragmatic than the theoretical stuff argued about above. What do people do there? Do they just fish, or do they work in the UK as guest workers and then fly back to Sealand on the holidays to run their kingdom? Is there a library? A national park (or a national potted plant or something)? Do they have a national cafeteria?

What is its GDP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.255.105 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the fire in 2006 there has been a renovation of Sealand by Church and East. There is also computing equipment there and Sealand has coins (the Sealand Dollar) and stamps (also in Sealand Dollars). Many Sealanders are also British so some will live in the UK and on Sealand and continue running their Principality whilst on Sealand.

Sealand does have a GDP in Sealand Dollars: SX$600,000 (SX$22,200 per capita).

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

GDP

Sealand's GDP is partly the Bates' family income, but also from selling lobsters, computing services, visas, tourism, the titles, merchandise, coins & stamps and probably more. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sovereignty

You can't say "The purported existence of Sealandic sovereignty is based on the following claims:" because that means:

"The following claims support the possible existence of Sealandic sovereignty."

The claims support the definite existence of Sealandic sovereignty - not the possible existence. This does not just apply to this sentence or even Sealand, but for Atlantium and the Principality of Hutt River for example. With any possibility there will be claims in support of one certainty and claims against the same certainty. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Now the sentence is more accurate. Also to say that there is no Sealandic sovereignty in the real world is not 100% accurate for two reasons:

• There are references, citations, laws and documents in support of Sealandic sovereignty, so it cannot be said that it definitely does not exist.
• So does the sovereignty of Atlantium exist in the real world? If the website of Atlantium, (which states that there are laws and documents in support of Atlantian sovereignty) is correct, then Atlantium also has claims that supports its sovereignty's existence. So Atlantium and Sealand both use laws and documents to support the existence of their sovereignty. Yet you say that Sealandic sovereignty does not exist in the real world - so that would mean that Atlantian sovereignty also does not exist in the real world. That is why you cannot say that Sealandic sovereignty does not exist - if there are documents and laws in support of Sealandic sovereignty - then nobody can say that they are certain that it does not exist. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This Sealand evangelism nonsense has gone on for long enough. It needs to stop. Now. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting the extreme minority fringe theory that Sealand is a sovereign state. It is NOT a sovereign state. The fact that it claims to be one does not make it so. The proposition verges on the ludicrous, has never been tested in any court with jurisdiction over such matters, and is entirely unsupported by even a single shred of reliable evidence. The article may note the claim - nothing more. Your increasingly strident attempts to give undue weight to the claim demonstrate that you are completely lacking in objectivity on a subject to which you appear to be directly personally involved. This behaviour is inappropriate, vexatious and disruptive to the editing process. I strongly encourage you to focus your attentions on subjects where your judgement will not be impaired in this manner. --Gene_poole (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the evidence which you say does not exist is above, so it definitely exists, as well as the laws that support Sealandic sovereignty - for example Sealand was in international waters in 1967.
• "The fact that it claims to be one does not make it so" - this would mean that Atlantium is not a nation either.
• "Has never been tested in any court" - a court decision decided that Sealand was definitely outside British waters. Also in 1978 when Achenbach, a German lawyer who held a Sealand passport, was charged with treason against Sealand, and was held unless he paid DM 75,000 (more than US$ 35,000). The governments of the Netherlands and Germany petitioned the British government for his release, but the United Kingdom disavowed all responsibility, citing the 1968 court decision.
• As I said before, I am not a Sealander.
• "I strongly encourage you to focus your attentions on subjects" - See WP:OWN. Editors who consider Sealand a sovereign state cannot be prevented from editing this article. And how are my edits disruptive to the editing process? I have improved the infobox, added images and information, added sources and references, reorganised the history section. For the coins of Sealand I have included a table. All of this does not seem disruptive to the editing process. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The fact that Sealand was in international waters in 1967 does not somehow magically make it a sovereign state. The International Law of the Sea does not make any reference to Sealand, so claiming it constitutes "evidence" of Sealand's sovereignty is complete and utter nonsense. Sealand is well inside British waters now in any case, so based on your reasoning it's actually part of the UK. Which is it to be? You can't have it both ways.

2. The terms "nation" and "state" are not synonymous. You would do well to understand this. Atlantium is not a nation, although it does claim to be a state. However, nobody is trying to insert content into the Atlantium article to try to lend respectability to a theory that nobody outside Atlantium itself accepts to be true. You, in contrast, are actively and transparently partisan in attempting to do precisely that in this article. It is highly inappropriate, there are no third party sources underpinning it, there is no consensus supporting it, and it will be stopped - one way or other.

3. The lower British court ruled in 1968 that it's own jurisdiction did not extend beyond Britain's territorial waters. It did NOT hand down a judgement on Sealand's legal status or declare Sealand to be a sovereign state. Simply being outside UK territorial waters does not magically bestow sovereignty onto a derelict sunken barge. This crucial legal subtelety appears to be completely lost on you. In fact the only court rulings that have touched on the matter of Sealand's status - the ones in the US and Germany - explicitly and emphatically ruled that it is NOT a sovereign state. Aside from all of that, Sealand's status has never been addressed by any supra-national entity or been tested in any international tribunal posessing jurisdiction. Until that occurs, Sealand's sovereignty claims mean precisely zip - no matter how often or how loudly they are proclaimed by the handful of breathless partisans who really really want to believe in them. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that it magically made Sealand a sovereign state, and what I said does not mean that it is in British waters. When it was in international waters, the Principality of Sealand was established, therefore Sealandic sovereignty was gained. British waters reached 12 miles instead of 3 miles after Sealand was established. However Britain cannot take control of Sealandic waters. Because the UK decided that Sealand was outside territorial waters it meant that no nation/state owns it. Because Sealand was established then Sealandic law applies on Sealand - and no other law from any other nation/state. What Germany and the US decide is not important - it only applies in Germany and the US.

"Nobody is trying to insert content into the Atlantium article to try to lend respectability to a theory" - This is definitely not true - you only have to read the Atlantium article to know that someone is making sure that the article does not simply say "The Empire of Atlantium is a micronation", but instead, "It has been referred to as a micronation, but the group does not consider itself a micronation". When I rewrite Sealand so that it is similar to Atlantium, you completely disagree - yet PubliusFL wrote this:

Your (Onecanadasquarebishopsgate) latest version looks like a big improvement to me. The Atlantium article is a pretty good model

So now that it is clear why no nation's/state's laws other than Sealand has any jurisdiction over Sealand - international law can be considered. You say that "Sealand's status has never been addressed by any supra-national entity or been tested in any international tribunal posessing jurisdiction - meaning that Sealand's status means nothing" - Also incorrect, with the documents and laws supporting Sealand's status, then Sealand's status can be recognised - so it definitely means more than nothing.

"No consensus supporting it" - Well, I'm not really surprised, I have read through some of the archives of discussion pages which refer to Sealand, and you are there making sure that Sealand is defined as a micronation.

Don't refer to Sealand as a "derelict sunken barge", it is a former Second World War Sea Fort and the renovations have made sure that it is not neglected - and it certainly is not abandoned.

Kingboyk thinks that Sealand is a micronation, yet I think that it is a sovereign state. Kingboyk did not want the country infobox to be used, and I didn't think that simply calling Sealand a micronation was accurate, therefore the micronation infobox remained, and the paragraph was rewritten. That is different from what you are doing - deleting my edits and changing the paragraphs so that the article states that Sealand is a micronation. If the article is going to be a featured article deleting my edits won't help. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your eccentric, non-mainstream, extreme minority POV on this subject is entirely unique. It is not supported by any reliable third party reference sources or any other editor. You lack both consensus and credibility, and are in imminent danger of being judged a crank and a disruptive contributor. I suggest you review your position and modify your behaviour accordingly. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So now you have resorted to insulting people. Well, let's compare recent edits to Sealand articles - since you consider my edits disruptive. I have improved the infobox, added information and images. I have reorganised the article and today I have added references. I have also added images of stamps and a table to the coins and postage stamps of Sealand article. Your recent edits to Sealand articles are mostly rewritings of short sentences so that they state that Sealand is a micronation.

Also, you are incorrect in saying that no other editor considers Sealand a sovereign state - here are two examples:

• "Seborga is just a joke IMO, and Sealand should stay, it is truly an unrecognized state.Velimir85 01:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• User:Nacnud298

Remember that WP:OWN is an official policy on Wikipedia, and that just because someone considers Sealand a sovereign state, it does not mean that they should be prevented from editing an article.

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to make a worthwhile contribution to the discussion please keep your comments relevant to the topic and comprehensible to native English speakers. Most of the above is incomprehensible, and that which is comprehensible is not relevant to the discussion. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I consider this trolling - so, as you have said before on this page, "It will be stopped - one way or other."

This conversation is over.

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions are of no consequence unless they are aligned with WP policies and conventions. That is the entire point of this discussion. Thus far that has not been the case. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I have been engaged in similar name-calling myself, I agree that one party throwing names at another is completely non-productive, and those opinions cannot and must not be allowed to influence content. The existence of laws which "might" support Sealand's sovreignty cannot be seen as evidence of sovreignty, in the same way tht an article which says Elvis Presley might have been abducted by aliens is not considered evidence that he was. Reasonable points have been made to produce reliable sources which say Sealand is a sovreign state. In cases such as these, Sealand itself is not necessarily considered a reliable source, although that evidence could be used to substantiate saying that it claims to be a sovreign state. Abkhazia is a similar state which makes such claims, and it might benefit the article to adapt some of the structure there, if in a different order. If it were to be argued in the article that Sealand is a separate state, I think it might need content which directly indicates when its owner actually declared it to be so, which it does not currently have. Personally, I can see having some content which says in short summary, with a link to Legal status of Sealand separate article, something which says a better phrased version of the following "Sealand declares itself to be an independent state. It issues government documents like many other governments. Some governments have recognized the Sealand passport, some scholars have argued that it might qualify as a sovreign state, and there are some extant laws which can be cited to indicate that these claims might have some validity. These points have been cited by some as evidence of Sealand's de facto independence. However, its independence has not been actively recognized by any other country, and Sealand itself has (I guess; I can't prove based on existing content) never formally applied for recognition by the UN or any other country as an independent state." If a source can be produced to say that such a request wouldn't have a good chance of being accepted, that might be added to indicate why. But, so far as I can see, the alleged "controversy" regarding this subject is at best minimal, and possibly not meriting the space it currently has in the article. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

What Sealand considers itself to be

I know that Sealand News calls Sealand a micronation, I don't know why, but it shouldn't. Sealand News is not controlled by Roy Bates or Sealand, it became official - it was once unofficial. This is similar to the BBC and ITV in the United Kingdom. Sealand News to Sealand is ITV to the United Kingdom, it is an independent news organisation, but the BBC is less independent. So if you want to know what Sealand considers itself, see their official website.

This is not vandalism, it's a correction. Also I have moved the sources to what others have considered Sealand to be, so that they are not deleted.

I also thought that maybe a new convention can be written for Wikiproject Micronations. These articles, whether these self-proclaimed nations are micronations or not, have had many disputes similar to the above. A new convention could be written to stop future disputes - a convention similar to an essay that editors can use when editing these articles. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If the official Sealand news blog says that Sealand is a micronation - and it does - repeatedly - then the article must reflect that. As an uninvolved party, it is not your place to judge what the official Sealand news blog it should or "shouldn't" say. As a WP editor you are required merely to report what it does say.

Aside from which Sealand has and actively participated in and contributed to at least 4 major micronation conventions and exhibitions over the past 3 years alone. This constitutes further compelling evidence that the Bates' accept that Sealand is viewed as a micronation by the majority of external observers and commentators. --Gene_poole (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. It isn't our place to say what official sources "should" say, but just to report what they do say. to do otherwise would violate WP:OR. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So when you want to know what Sealand considers itself - which is more reliable? Sealand official website or Sealand News? WP needs reliable sources. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Granted, and both sites are "official" sites of Sealand. If there is an apparent contradiction, then I think we are obligated to say both sides, and both of these "official" sites have to be counted as being reliable for the purpose of indicating what the government itself thinks. I believe one would be on very shaky ground if one were to try to say that the "official" newspaper of a body would make statements with which the body itself disagrees, and discounting the statements of Sealand News would be doing exactly that. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of which is more reliable. The Sealand website and the Sealand News Blog are both "official" first party sources of information about what Sealand considers itself to be. We must simply report what they say - even if they say something that appears to be contradictory or a bit strange. That is what NPOV is all about. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCE, this blog is not acceptable as a source. Also, since you seem to think undue weight is important, how many sources support what you say? Even if Sealand News was correct (and yes John Carter, I do question the accuracy of the information on Sealand News) it would be the only source supporting what you believe. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. When reporting what Sealand considers itself to be, its own official sources are the only sources that are required. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Gene Poole, even if what you say is true - though it is clearly not - Sealand's own titles clearly say that there is only one official government website. How can you call Sealand News a first party source? You don't even know if it is an independent news organisation (it is). Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can verify that, then perhaps you can be correct. It is certainly possible that an official, independent source can disagree with the government. The BBC certainly proves that. However, it would be very dubious to question whether an officially recognized source such as Sealand News would make statements so directly contrary to what might be official statements of the entity itself. For questions like this, I think comment on the WP:RS talk page might be in order. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. It would be bizarre in the extreme were the officially designated news blog of an entity with a total membership of around 30 people to be found to be publishing statements not endorsed - implicitly or explicitly - by the Bates family - particularly as the family themselves have sent their own family members to represent them at micronation conferences, which supports the position of the blog. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That is why I find that unusual John Carter. Sealand News is not copyrighted by the Sealandic Government, and it became official here. It also does not make any sense - how can you call something state-like and a state at the same time? Roy Bates never called Sealand a micronation. Also there are no other sources supporting the claim that Gene Poole suddenly decided to write.

More than 30 Gene Poole - and when I say the reasons why they consider themselves a microstate and yet visit these conventions you just ignore what I say and continuously repeat what you just said. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

They're either official or they're not. Can we somehow find out? If they're not official then arguably they totally fail WP:RS and, again arguably, shouldn't be referenced at all. --kingboyk (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe by contacting them directly as per here to determine just what exactly the relationship between the two is? John Carter (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't just ask them if they're official - they will definitely say yes, what needs to be asked is why do they call Sealand a micronation when they are supposed to be an official newspaper. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't the question I was suggesting to be asked. What I was suggesting to be asked was the exact nature of their relationship. That would include whether they are independent operators or an "official extension" of the government itself, like any other governmental unit. It would be very unpolitic to question why they make the statements they do, but it would be reasonable to ask them to describe exactly what their relationship with Sealand is. This would include whether they are a form of contractor, whether they provide the service free in exchange for the some of the revenues from the site, whether it is entirely pro bono, and how exactly they choose what content they do. That would include information as to whether their content is reviewed in advance by the officials of Sealand or not. Such information would be valuable, and I think they should be willing to release it, particularly if the reasons for asking the questions were also given. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, just be aware that they might respond for self-promotion (not really useful for Wikipedia) , so you might want to contact the Sealandic government if necessary. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

It has been indicated that the Lonely Planet guide is "completely unreliable". I request that the reasons for declaring this source to be unreliable as per WP:RS be given before content relevant to that source be removed. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, the LP guide is the most reliable source to be published on this subject in decades. One of the authors actually visited Sealand, and his article in The Australian (in which he describes the place as a "decrepit hulk", among other choice terms), is illuminating to say the least. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Where has it been indicated? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The reputation of the "Lonely Planet" series is very good, which leads me to think that the individual volume almost certainly qualifies as one of the "reliable, third-pary published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Aspects of reliability. For the information to not be included, I think there would have to be an equally reputable source which directly contradicts it and/or a specific source which specifically challenges either this specific volume or the information within it. John Carter (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And is there such a source or are you trying to explain something? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am telling you that it is incumbent upon you, as the person challenging that content, to produce such a source. Should you fail to do so, then you will have failed in your attempt to challenge the reliability of that source. So, yes, by all means, produce the verification for your challenge. The series is generally counted as an "extremely" reliable source, and I see no particular evidence put forward to date to indicate that this volume is not one such. Therefore, if you wish to indicate it is not reliable, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate why. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not challenging Lonely Planet - why do you think that? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

When you reverted the content "External commentators generally classify Sealand as a micronation", and the source for that statement, the "Micronations" volume of the Lonely Planet series, with the edit summary "not true - completely unreliable source", as per here, it is hard not to conclude that you are questioning the accuracy of that source. If you meant something else, I'd very much welcome finding out exactly what you did mean. John Carter (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand, no that is not what I meant - I meant that Sealand does not simultaneously consider itself a micronation and a sovereign state. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Lonely Planet - they are definitely a reliable source, I meant Sealand News. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a possible convention, maybe we could test it using Sealand. Gene Poole, Kingboyk, John Carter, what do you think about rewriting the lead calling Sealand a micronation but stating that it claims to be a sovereign state? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does simultaneously consider itself to be a micronation and a sovereign state. That is what its own official sources say, and it is confirmed by the actions of the Bates family in attending multiple micronation conferences and exhibitions. It is a very simple concept. Rewriting the lead paragraph in the manner suggested would return it to what it was before you began contributing to the article. --Gene_poole (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not confirmed, Sealand's site does state that even at these conventions it considers itself a microstate. But, yes Gene Poole, that is what I am suggesting - it might seem unusual, but if the convention will work to stop future disputes, then maybe it is a better solution. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed the principality itself, requesting clarification on the matter. I have yet to receive a response, but when I do I will post the content here, and forward copies to any parties who request as much. John Carter (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Message from Sealand

I have received a response from the government of Sealand. I would request that at least the two most involved editors in this discussion, Gene poole and Onecanadasquarebishopsgate, and anyone else who has a significant interest in this article, ensure that their e-mail is enabled and let me know when they have done so to allow me to forward to them the message I have received so that we can all discuss this new information. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John Carter, it seems that Sealand only considers itself a microstate. The email also tells us that Sealand News' editor and publisher are not linked with the government, and that information on the Principality has significant errors. Does that mean that Sealand News is less reliable as a source?

I'll change the article to what I suggested earlier (so that it follows the convention). Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't yet sighted any email on this subject, so I'm working blind.

The blog clearly contains a great deal of information not documented elsewhere which could only possibly have come from "official" sources, so the claim that there is "no link" is a bit disingenuous - particularly when all the parties involved are almost certainly in personal contact. There is obviously some link, although the precise nature of it remains to be determined.

If the blog doesn't mirror the views of the Bates family, but nonetheless has access to "official" information, then it must by definition constitute an independent source which should - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - be considered reliable.

Of course none of this changes the fact that Sealand actively participates in micronation exhibitions and conferences whenever it has the opportunity to do so - and emphatically avoids participation in conferences of microstates. A case of actions speaking louder than words. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, surely the default is to consider it unreliable. Anybody can publish a website. John, please forward the email to me too, thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, that the official documents of any government are not necessarily considered the most reliable sources. They are useful for several factors, and relevant information on official statements from such sources are generally considered very reliable, but they are not necessarily considered the most reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that WP:SPS shows that Sealand News is not reliable. Should Sealand News be removed from this article as a source? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sealand News is the designated official news site of the subject of this article, and it contains much useful information which is not published anywhere else. It should certainly not be removed. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there is no good justification for saying that Sealand News is unreliable. The statement from the government is that it is independent, and that is a far different matter. It is almost certainly as reliable a source as most any other in matters such as these. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that John. You have to provide evidence that it is reliable. The default is unreliable, especially for web sources. Some useful questions for proving reliability might be (off the top of my head): Who are the publishers? What are their credentials? Is the resource relied on or considered authoratative within the area of knowledge in which it operates? See WP:RS and WP:V. I haven't actually looked at the email yet, mind you. --kingboyk (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Corrected a typo. --kingboyk (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably true. However, it clearly is not a "Self-published source", as per the objection raised, as it is not directly published by Sealand itself, but rather an independent entity. It may disqualify on other bases, but not that one. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The requirements actually got stricter by that revelation :) As I understand it, a self published source can be used as evidence of what they said or claim and for basic biographical info. As a 3rd party source it's usable for nothing unless it meets WP:RS. --kingboyk (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Olympic medal?

This article claims: "Matt Hyland of London, Ontario became Sealand's first official Bronze Medalist at the 2004 Summer Olympics. His victory was in high jump." No source is provided, and the claim conflicts with an article about the Olympics which states that Jaroslav Bába of the Czech Republic won the Olympic bronze in the men's high jump at the 2004 Olympics. Aridd (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that too. I am not sure if I should delete it so I moved it to a better section. I never heard of this claim before though, and Google does not mention it either. A claim that is not true, perhaps? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's unsourced and contradicted by other information, I think we can remove it. Which someone apparently already has. Aridd (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This medal was won by Joan Lino Martínez Armenteros User:Npnunda —Preceding comment was added at 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

John Lino Martinez did not win the medal for Sealand. I was just posting who won the medal in question. Matt Hyland didn't win the bronze for high jump John Lino Martizez did for spain http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/athens2004/track_field/results?medals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npnunda (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fire and related events

I've just read the section on 2006's fire for the first time, and I can't say I believe a word of it - apart from the fire itself, which was widely reported. Where did the story about the crazed female attacker come from? Unless there's a reputable source supporting it I propose to delete it as a fictional insertion. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This section was added on 29 Feb 2008 by User:Editor70 (Talk | contribs). It is their only contribution to date. The story looks dubious to me too, especially in the absence of a citation to a reliable source. There are some errors, such as the typo "intiaied" and a damaged "ref" tag. I did a quick search for characteristic words from this contribution but wasn't able to find a clear source of copying. --Jdlh | Talk 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think even if an unidentified female crash-landed by parachute onto Sealand it would have been noticed - that is if you can even specifically use Sealand as a landing zone. There isn't even a single reference. Let's replace it with the previous, referenced version - even Google can't find a result for this. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fiction removed. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Why are there email addresses in the references section? I don't even know if they are real - should we remove them? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Coup attempt

what was the legal status of the coup? certainly actions in international waters could be prosecuted under piracy laws, and participating in a coup would be illegal. From where did the helicopter attack launch. what type of arms were involved? is this a joke, or was it a real conflict? What was the motivation of the coup? Rds865 (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It has always been recorded as a real event of Sealand's history by the Sealandic prime minister. However different sources describe the event in different amounts of detail. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Titles

you can buy a title from sealand here. http://www.redsave.com/products/Become-a-Lord,-Lady,-Baron-or-Baroness,,21 does anyone know if it is legitimate? Rds865 (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The titles are recognised by the Principality of Sealand, and the there is a link to the titles from the official Sealand website. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

reliable source

is http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=188 a reliable source? it mentions Micheal treatment when kidnapped, banns on drinking and smoking, as well as other rules and a possible takeover plan by the UK. Rds865 (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, is http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200007%5CFor20000728b.html? It has good info, but there are possibly some errors. The Dark Overlord (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

E mare libertas

If they had learned some Latin, they would have known that it is "E mari libertas" (ablative and not accusative). MaartenVidal (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been noticed before and it is mentioned in the article, however Sealand officially uses "E Mare Libertas". Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gypsies

Where did the content about "Sealandish gypsies" come from? I propose to delete it as vandalism unless someone can show there's some basis in reality to the statement. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it without reading this comment. Agreed it was nonsense and probabaly non-notable even if sourced. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Passports

I have read in several places that the fake passports were given out by Achenbach. Can anybody confirm this? The Dark Overlord (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Achenbach

I have heard of many differient versions of the assault story, many of which give the leader differient names, such as Gernot Putz. Could somebody try to confirm the real storyThe Dark Overlord (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lonely Planet names the person as Achenbach. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sealand News

It seems Sealand News has removed its "facts" page - probably after it was decided to send Sealand an e-mail about the word "micronation". After quickly searching for "micronation" in the other pages and not finding it, it is possible that they have been asked not to use the word as a description anymore. If this is true, this can affect the article in the future. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I found one other use of the term; I expect there are many others. Nothing changes. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You probably mean when they use "micronation" in list of news stories. That was on April 21st, they could have been notified by Sealand afterwards. Let's not say nothing changes or even anything changes until we are sure. We'll probably know more when they replace the page. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

E Mare Libertas

Ive translated "E Mare Libertas", it means Out of Sea, Freedom, not From the sea, freedom. --The Republic of Ben 10 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sealand names its motto as From the Sea, Freedom. There has been discussion over whether the Latin is correct, but this article only needs to refer to Sealand's interpretation. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal Status of Sealand, its Titles etc

For a having a nation, the first criteria is that it must be a part of the surface of the earth. Only thereafter do criteria such as recognition, de-facto recognition etc apply. Sealand is not a part of the surface of the earth, it is a float above a sand bank. It has the same legal status as a ship. Its 'Government' is as much a Government as the butcher in his shop at the corner who says he is a Duke. Its titles the same ... The whole Principality is a hoax that has been taken very seriously by the 'Sealanders' themselves, some dreamers tired of reality and nobody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LutzBrux (talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this isn't a forum, your comments don't benefit the article. Secondly please provide references for what you state. Thank you. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

These are the criteria stated by international law under which an entity may consider itself a sovereign state. Being actual land is demonstrably not among these points.

Even if Lutz had been correct, there exists an enormous loophole in his argument: Fort Roughs does not float. It sits in solid contact with the sandbar, which sits in solid contact with underwater land, which is in turn part of the Eurasian Plate and hence part of the surface of the earth. To say Fort Roughs can not be a country because it is not technically land is like saying your house isn't part of your country because it's technically built on a cement foundation.

Please note I personally neither recognize nor not recognize Sealand by making the statements above. I'm just trying to bring some clarity to the discussion. DerekMBarnes (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the page on sovereignty, as well as the one on states and nation states, all mention need to have (control over) territory

And, there is a presendent of a Japanese island that was slowly sinking into the ocean. Japan tried to preserve the island (or rather, the territorial waters and thus fishing rights around it) by putting a concrete structure on top of it that remained above sealevel. But the UN ruled that, once the island itself sank beneath the wave, Japan would loose it's exclusive rights.

Following that line of reasoning, Sealand is not an island and thus, it can't be an independent nation.

But it doesn't end there. I vaguely remember the UN guaranteeing that the Kiribatan nationality will continue to be recognised even if all of Kiribati is swallowed up by rising sealevels

And to make things even more fun, what of those 300-something islands The Emirates are building ... the original idea involved the Emirates giving up control over the islands (once sold, of course) leaving the owners free to declare independence. Now, try and argue that those islands are not 'territory'

All in all, Sealand's status as real territory is, at best, up in legal limbo. Fiji101 (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily "control over" territory. If Russia invaded Ukraine today and took complete control of its government and land, Ukraine's sovereignty would still be recognized by the UN. Concerning Kiribati, rising water would be considered a natural disaster dislocating the inhabitants, rendering them refugees.

It is my understanding of international law that an artificial island may not be built with the intention of declaring it a sovereign territory (case in point, the Republic of Minerva); however, there is nothing against a sovereign entity building an artificial island as an extension of itself. Am I wrong?

If I'm right, it leads into this question: the United Kingdom built and established Fort Roughs as an extension of its territory during wartime; then they abandoned said territory completely, while it still laid beyond their nautical border. If an artifical island can be claimed as geographic territory by its builders, why not so by its successive occupants? DerekMBarnes (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Principality of Sealand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am quickfailing it due to the various cleanup tags: citation needed, unreliable source, vague, and clarify. Please fix these before renominating. Here are some other things to work on:

• Since the 1990s and 2000s sections are so small, would it not be better to combine them?

Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are quite a few short one sentence paragraphs. Please expand or merge into surrounding paragraphs.

Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the web sources need to be formatted with Template:cite web.

Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also, some of the like references need to be combined. Specifically, 11, 12, and 39.

Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with improving the article. Nikki311 01:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Principality of Sealand/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I do not believe this article is ready yet for GA status. I have added {{fact}} tags where additional citations may be necessary. Also, the lead mentions that "Citing court rulings in the United States and in Germany, critics have asserted that Roughs Tower has always remained under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom" yet no such court rulings are mentioned in the article.

I have edited the sentence about the court rulings. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The only place where the article mentions British sovereignty over Sealand is the 1968 court ruling, which ruled that it was not under British jurisdiction. Provide a recent source that shows that the UK claims Sealand as a part of its territory. -epicAdam (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As the article is relatively short, I would recommend cleaning up and merging Legal status of Sealand into this article. Since the debate over whether this territory is actually it's own state is probably the only reason this article even exists, that information can certainly presented in the main article. Further, per WP:ENGVAR, the article needs to be consistent in its use of American vs. British grammar. For example, there are instances when both "defense" and "defence" are used, as well as "recognize" and "recognise".

I would suggest using British English - Sealand is located within Europe where British English is the English that is taught in school, also Sealand is only 8 miles away from the British coast. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You can use whatever you like. Just make it consistent. -epicAdam (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please renominate when the above revisions have been made! Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I added templates to the articles because I wanted the opinions of other editors before we continue with the merge. Merge or don't merge? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Throwing in my own two cents from above, I believe the articles should be merged for the following reasons:

• Sealand is notable because of the issues over its sovereignty and status within the international community. Therefore, all information relating to that issue should clearly be present in the main article on Sealand.
• Much of the information in Legal status of Sealand (it appears like roughly half) is already present in the main article and would likely to be an easy merge.
• The main article on Sealand at present is relatively short and would benefit from the expanded information.

Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge. If I recall correctly, the legal status article was originally created or expanded as a fork by a long-vanished problem editor who apparently had a personal axe to grind with Roy Bates dating from pirate radio days. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, gotta Merge. Vidor (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge--Wilson (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

merge--Kitty 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

merge Icedog (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This merger has now been performed. Since Legal status of Sealand contained no material supported by reliable sources beyond what is already in Principality of Sealand, the merger did not result in any material being added to Principality of Sealand. PL290 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why Sealand?

There's something about this article that I think is missing. What reason did Bates claim for leaving England and forming his own country? Surely a declaration of sovereignty would at least explain this much? DerekMBarnes (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It formed after Britain stated that they wanted to capture Sealand. Britain wanted Bates to surrender, but he refused, and then formed Sealand. He wanted to make clear to the British armed forces that they were not going to capture the fort. Bates was a radio broadcaster on the fort, which was illegal under British law. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Article intro

I have again re-written the last sentence of the intro section, as follows:

The United Kingdom's position is that it has always exercised jurisdiction over Roughs Tower; the Bates' have never mounted any formal challenge to that position.

This is a simple uncontroversial summation of the situation.

Ample citable sources exist to substantiate the UK's position - including cabinet papers dating to the 1960s.

No citation is necessary to support the second part of the statement, which can only be challenged by the existence of sources which prove it to be incorrect. No such sources exist. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think editors may be confusing this with a NPOV dispute, because it's been reworded twice in the last 24 hours, but still isn't cited. WP:NPOV isn't the issue; WP:RS is — it's a major fact that goes to the basic nature of the article's subject, and yet has no citation. It's good that "ample citable sources exist" somewhere of the UK government position — now they need to exist here on Wikipedia, at the end of the claim, with a <ref> tag. (As for the new second phrase "Bates' have never mounted any formal challenge to that position": That is probably difficult to maintain, what with 1967 Essex Assizes firearms case and all, which certainly seems about as formal as formal gets.) --Closeapple (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm all about using template:fact when warranted, but no such unsourced langauge should be in the LEAD of such a lengthy article as this. I also feel that the court case mentioned in the previous post is quite plainly a "formal challenge." I'm striking the sentence altogether, until sourced and present outside the LEAD. It warrants longer discussion, if properly supported. MrZaius^talk 10:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re WP:RS, yes, I understand the issue.

The 1967 firearms case did not constitute anything even remotely resembling a challenge by Bates to the authority of the UK government over the status of Roughs Tower. The judge merely determined that he could not rule on the case because the location at which the alleged offence occured was outside his court's jurisdiction - not that it was outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom period. BIG difference.

Bates has never sought to test the legal theory that Sealand is an independent state in any court which actually has the authority to determine such matters - be they British, European or supranational. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying he argued his case in a private lunch with Ban Ki Moon, but it certainly does "remotely resemble" just such a challenge. If the line is fuzzy enough that you're getting this sort of push-back from multiple editors, it's time to back it up with clear RS lest your positions be dismissed as an essayist's WP:OR. Again, it may not be wrong, although it seems somewhat unclear to this editor, but it is certainly a potentially controversial statement worthy of being sourced. Regardless: The WP:LEAD is the wrong place to work towards making new claims. The preceding sentence makes the point just fine, in the interim. Please read the aforelinked guideline on writing an effective and encyclopedic summary in the WP:LEAD. MrZaius^talk 15:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree - and I don't think it's so important it needs to be in the intro paragraph anyway. We did have a cited BBC reference to the UK Foreign Office position in this article years ago, but it seems to have been deleted somewhere along the way. I'll reinsert it when I find it. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lonely Planet does actually say "outside the control of the United Kingdom", not "outside the court's jurisdiction". However it is true that Bates has not tested Sealand's sovereignty in any official court as far as we know (even that is not clear, but seeing as we need sources to support claims in Wikipedia, we can say that that the sovereignty hasn't been tested). - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The trial transcript can be cited in support of the "outside the court's jurisdiction" assertion, and that certainly trumps Lonely Planet. This Home Office statement should also be cited in the article. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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)