Jump to content

Talk:Principality of Sealand/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

New developments?

The recent addition citing Times Online make it look, as something important has happened recently. But Google News remains rather silent [1]. It seems to me, the only new development, is the sale of a new series of Sealand passports, and the cited court decision is the old one. See also [2]. --Pjacobi 08:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the way the article is currently is ok though, since it just says what the times said. It seems like the times either didn't do much research, or may be simply making a big deal out of nothing. Who knows, maybe more information will come out. Either way, the article certainly doesn't warrant any other modifications unless more definitive materia comes out. - Taxman Talk 13:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Obviously, Sealand is no longer populatet after it burnt down: "A FORMER wartime fortress which is now a self-proclaimed independent state has been left devastated after a fierce blaze tore through the structure. Sealand is still populated, I have been there recently and met the crew, they have all the necessary supplies and services that they need while further reconstruction is underway

The so-called Principality of Sealand, seven miles off the coast of Felixstowe and Harwich, was evacuated at lunchtime yesterdayafter a generator caught fire." (Cite from http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=news&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=zNews&itemid=IPED24%20Jun%202006%2009%3A12%3A24%3A070)

We have added the transfer information twice: once under history and again at the end under its own subheading. This must be reconciled, as it is the same info twice. Also, links at the bottom link to Spanish site; I didn't know how to formally state that (if needed) so it would be nice if someone showed me how. Cpt ricard 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Micronation

(I'm pasting this into the talk page of all the micronation category articles.)

I've just started a template for the micronation infobox, based on the Sealand box. I've also written usage guidelines on it's talk page. I'd like to please invite any interested people to go over its talk page to discuss the template itself, along with my guidelines. As a demo of the template, please see Lovely (micronation), which I just edited to use the template. --Billpg 23:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

how about economy?

how about a section about the economy of Sealand? That's what catches my attention. Where do they get their food? How do they make money? Do they trade? If so, what?

Thanks

Really good article. Short for an FA, but covering all the major points, and well written. Thanks to everyone who worked on it! Soo 03:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Passport sentence

"Due to the massive quantity in circulation (estimated at 150,000), in 1997 the Bates family revoked all of the Sealand passports that they themselves had issued in the previous thirty years."

Who issued the 150,000 passports? Bates or the other people? --Gbleem 04:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence is worded akwardly. The other people issued the huge lump of passports. Because of that, the Bates' revoked all the passports that they themselves issued (considerably less than 150k). Search4Lancer 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Western Sahara

How is Sealand like Western Sahara? Johnski 05:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This juxtaposition is extremely inaccurate. Western Sahara was a previously existing entity, with independence recognized by 44 states, among other significant differences (for instance, it also has a native population asserting a right to sovereignty). The current wording makes it seem as though it is (a) a micronation and (b) unrecognized, both untrue. Ak13 05:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

suggestions

This article could really use some inline citations (see WP:FN). Also, the last two sections of content are amazingly short, and ought to be expanded. --Spangineeres (háblame) 05:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps they could be incorporated into the legal status section? --Spangineeres (háblame) 05:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


Shooting Incident

I heard an NPR story about Sealand in which the shooting incident which Michael Bates was summoned to court for was described much differently. The person being interviewed I think was one of the founders of HavenCo, whom [robably knew the Bates personally (but I could be wrong about it being a founder of HavenCo). According to him the shooting happened when British Navy sailors were making cat-calls to his sister whom was sun-bathing. To which Michael Bates responed by firing a .22 caliber rifle in their general direction. I don't remember what NPR show it was (I'm pretty sure it was Robert Seagull doing the report though, information I can use to find the show and then its archives when I have time) I'll try and find the show to see if it is suitable to be used as a source (which might be preferable to the unsourced "according to some reports" information now). Otherwise can someobeody please source the "reports" mentioned in the current article? --Brentt 07:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to use whom (a painful archaism kept alive only by people who use it incorrectly but want to sound smart if you ask me), learn how to use it correctly. Also, to which.
Here's a link to the NPR story [3]. If anyone feels it would add anything of value, we may want to add it to the article.--Alex 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to Sealand editors

Congratulations to Sealand contributors for the article's appearance as FAC OTD for 12-28. A well deserved accomplishment. The fact that a controversial topic can navigate the waters of NPOV without dumping the bulk of its cargo overboard during the trip is a testament to sound, sane application of WP principles and to your work. Long overdue. - Keith D. Tyler 08:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A question

Can you buy alcohol, tobacco, etc. cheaply at Sealand, or get other offshore tax concessions? This would be one test of sovereignty. --Publunch 11:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That would involve the possibility of anyone visiting Sealand - a possibility which does not exist. I've spoken to Roy Bates myself, and Sealand's borders are absolutely closed to anyone without a need to be there. Search4Lancer 11:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Criminy, even North Korea has a tourism industry. - Keith D. Tyler
North Korea has a population of about 22 million, Sealand about 6. I think that this is like comparing apples to oranges... - Ta bu shi da yu 01:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. And there's not much of anything special to see on Sealand, anyway. Search4Lancer 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding? I want to see the fabled nitrogen-filled data center. Anyway, my point was from the angle of isolationism, not population. Antarctica doesn't have many people, either, and less government than Sealand, but that doesn't prevent it from having a tourist industry. TEHO. And besides, what's the original source of that NK population number? Is it reliable? :) - Keith D. Tyler 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, and yeah, even Antarctica has many more people than Sealand. However, people are actually allowed to go to Antarctica. People aren't allowed to go to Sealand, the main reason being the coup attempt/kidnapping of Michael. Even if it was years and years ago, that is the reason Roy cited to me. Search4Lancer 21:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Statistics from Sealand themselves

I got an email with the following data: 

 Sex ratio:
  0-14 years:  2.0 males/female
  15-64 years:  6.0 males/female
  65 years and over:  2.0 males/female
 Total population:  4.4 males/female

I know it's from Sealand and not an external source, but I think it would be fair to update the article. Anyone got any objections to me doing this? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL I don't see the harm. But it should be carefully placed AND sourced. Too many think this article (and Sealand itself) is a joke as it stands.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes I object. It's frivolous at best, and not verifiable. --kingboyk 03:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a very high male to female ratio, the females there are going to be very busy if Sealand is going to continue existing. Dionyseus 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

We really need a larger image, the one we have now is thumbnail-sized Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to use something from http://photos.venona.com/ in any of the directories not marked "professional", just mark (c) Ryan Lackey and the appropriate year. User:rdl

Why was this image taken out of the article? Kingutd 09:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

guys the picture is WAY TO SMALL, I had to google to get a good view of what it looks like, here some better pictures [4] email them maybe they'll let us use one of them., or use one from here [5] 75.15.227.45 05:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Google maps?

How do you find it on maps.google.com ?

ROFLMAO! You're kidding, right? You don't. That's how.

Search4Lancer 19:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Um...except that you can, by clicking on the 51°53′40″N 1°28′57″E / 51.89444°N 1.48250°E / 51.89444; 1.48250 coordinates link in the first paragraph, and using any one of a number of map sources. If it wasn't for the fact that satellite mapping of the North Sea is fairly coarse, and Sealand is only about 100 yards long, you'd be able to make it out perfectly :) — sjorford (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

R.I.P. Roy "Paddy" Bates

Here's a toast to Sealand's recently departed founder and leader. To a rebel...an adventurer...a soldier and not simply a Man Who Would Be King but one who WAS, on his own terms and in his own way. Such figures are rare, and the world is a more dull, oppressive place for it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sealand is not just a place, it's an idea, you carry with you in your heart where ever you go.--M4bwav 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
WELL SAID.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you provide an external link to the news? I can't find a shred about it. --kingboyk 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, what is our source? It's certainly not on Sealand's own website. --Gene_poole 00:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It STILL isn't on the Sealand site, nor is anything showing on Google News. The BBC and the British papers would carry this story for sure. I'm becoming increasingly alarmed that we have been fed a hoax. --kingboyk 04:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If it cannot be confirmed, it MUST be deleted as unverifiable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. I can practically guarantee that Wikipedia is not going to "scoop" the rest of the world on such a news matter. The Sealand people are not going to come here to let us know first. Unless whoever gave us the information can provide a source for us to examine, it MUST be removed until we hear otherwise. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only do I agree with what you said, but further research suggests that the information was inserted by a known vandal. We may have been wrongly reporting someone's demise, which is rather embaressing. Of course, if Mr Bates has passed away I shall look the fool, but I'll take that risk for the sake of Wikipedia. --kingboyk 04:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed wholeheartedly. Mea culpa... I am certain it was a hoax; there's no way P.R.Bates had Prader-Willi syndrome. +sj + 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I've combed through a dozen, reliable sources and nowhere is it mentioned. So Mea Culpa too, for letting sentiment cloud my skepticism. On one hand I'm glad P.R. Bates is still with us...bit on the other GRRRRRRRRR!!!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

HM Fort Roughs, Rough Sands, Roughs Tower, Sealand, HavenCo, Ryan Lackey, Paddy Roy Bates and even poor old Radio Caroline. The same material appears over and over, often whole paragraphs being almost exactly the same. I've just wasted a few hours trimming Paddy Roy Bates into a focussed, readable overview, merging the HM Fort Roughs articles into one, tweaking cleaning and polishing up. What I haven't done yet is determine what is Sealand history and what is HM Fort Roughs history, furthermore that's likely to be rather more contentious than my bold but I think fairminded and well explained edits so far. I'm an impartial editor with no strong POV on this topic. What I cannot tolerate is that history being told in near identical words in 3 places, and in particular the exaggeration of the importance of Sealand to Radio Caroline. (At the moment this is just a rant, but if you would like to help me by removing the excess Sealand baggage from Caroline, and removing any unneccesary duplication from the other articles I would appreciate it.) --kingboyk 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason all those articles exist is because MPLX (who more than a few of us suspected of being slightly unhinged), wrote or hugely expanded most of them as part of a virulent anti-Sealand campaign he was conducting at the time. With the possible exception of Radio Caroline they can and should be merged into the main article. MPLX eventually offended too many other editors elsewhere and stormed off in a huff, never to be seen again. --Centauri 05:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
OK. I knew there'd been some controversy in the past so I've tried to be bold but resolutely neutral. The Caroline article only has excessive Sealand stuff in one section and wouldn't suffer from the loss. I don't object to there being multiple articles either (one on Sealand, one on Mr Bates, one on the fort) so long as I don't keep reading the exact same words over and over :) --kingboyk 05:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I would be glad to see them all merged into a single Sealand article, with deep redirects from the page titles to specific subsections. That way, among other things, all pages will be kept up to date together. The tower and Mr. Bates are primarily notable in the context of the principality. +sj + 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm most concerned about the Radio Caroline article at the present time. However I can't really face any more Sealand editing for now. --kingboyk 01:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template

{{User Sealand recognition}} For those who wish to show support for Sealand on their user pages

What a cool Temp! Good job and thanks!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

why is it gone now?Sir Robert Castellano 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Text from the Radio Caroline article

The Radio Caroline article has grown rather unwieldy, and in an attempt to clean it up I have removed the following text which is more relevant to Roy Bates and Sealand than Caroline. I'm pasting it here in case you want to recycle it:

That station was called World Mission Radio and its on air announced address was in California, USA. Before the raid in 1987, Allan Weiner of Maine, USA had twice attempted to broadcast on AM (Medium Wave and Long Wave), FM and Short Wave from the motor vessel alleged to be the Sarah off Jones Beach, Long Island, New York, under the name of Radio Newyork International. Weiner also been on board the Ross Revenge where he had earlier attempted to install a shortwave transmitter. On board was his DJ friend John Ford from the US. Later, after Ford left Radio Caroline he became one of the original investors in Radio Newyork International. Transmissions were received in over half of the US. The first attempt ended when the vessel was boarded in international waters by US Customs, FBI and FCC officials and the vessel was taken into port at Boston.
Following the raid on the Sarah in which Weiner had been brought back to shore in handcuffs, he flew to England for an offshore radio convention in Blackpool and later met Michael Bates whose father Roy claimed to have established an independent country - Sealand - off southeast England. This so-called "principality" was in reality another former British World War II fort (see Radio City death, above). Under a paper transaction, Weiner sold both the radio station and the radio ship to a British company managed by Michael Bates, upon the provision that Weiner would later be able to buy back both the radio station and radio ship. Under this agreement Weiner was to manage the radio station for the alleged British company, while the radio ship itself was to be re-registered by Michael Bates in the country which his father was alleged to have established. Thus Weiner claimed that he no longer owned the radio station or the radio ship.
The next year, the vessel returned to sea again off Jones Beach and again attempted the same broadcasts under the same call-sign, only this time it claimed be owned by a British company with the radio ship itself registered in the
The US government immediately contacted the UK Department of Trade and Industry concerning these British connections to both the radio station and the radio ship, when attorneys representing Allan Weiner also began citing Radio Caroline as an internationally accepted offshore radio station during the case brought against Weiner and his associates that resulted from their first offshore broadcasts in 1987 which had led to Weiner's arrest. Connections were then made between World Mission Radio and the US.
Later, in 1990 during an Administrative Court hearing into a shortwave radio licence being sought by Allan Weiner, the US government again contacted the DTI for help concerning the Principality of Sealand registration of the MV Sarah. In return the same James Murphy who had led the British part of the raid on the MV Ross Revenge then performed a sworn document made under the laws of both the UK and the US. In this document he stated that he was an investigator for the Official Solicitor on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry and that he had investigated the alleged Principality of Sealand. He reported that it was neither a state nor an entity capable of registering ships. This US Administrative Court decision was appealed by Allan Weiner in 1991 and the original opinion was upheld in court.
These international court case connections eventually led to Ryan Lackey abandoning the Havenco internet project at Sealand.

--kingboyk 13:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


Another interesting thing is the "shop" link on sealandgov.com, where they are now selling lordships. Hahaha.

Ryan 11:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an old show, granted, but I remember a piece on Sealand from That's Incredible. Would that qualify as trivia? If so, someone should add it if I don't in time. Bobak 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Church and East

Found as new addition to Operations:

Sealand has recently entered into a contract with Church and East to construct a marina and other facilities in Sealand. Church and East are claiming that hospitality visits to the Principality will be available from the end of June 2006 and are already taking bookings Sealand@churchandeast.co.uk. The Director Chris Harrington has recently commenced negotiations with a number of high profile sports organisations in the UK, with a view to use the newly available facilities as a press free venue for conferences.

Can anybody offer a source and a working link for this text? For now I've moved it here, it sounds like a hoax. -- Omniplex 02:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the information regarding Church and East, and any proposed activity is confidential for the moment, however further publicity and verifiable information will be available in the not too distant future. The Company do disclose there address on there web site as well as the directors email address, charrington@churchandeast.co.uk and are happy to take questions, however they are bound by non disclosure agreements for the most part. Also the information quoting that a marina was to be constructed from what I can tell is totally false

Pretty much, we are not saying that the whole Church and East/Sealand deal is false or that you guys are making something up, but at Wikipedia, we have a policy that we need to have secondary sources claiming "yes, this is true" or "that's false." Without, it is going to be considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I did not get anything back from Sealand yet, but if the above statement is true, the most I am going to get out of them is either a "yes" or a "no" about the mere existance of the deal. On a second note, when we do have the information in the article, please do not include your email address, since those are usually removed due to spam concerns (not as in you spamming us, but spambots spamming you). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
No, original research is NOT allowed on Wikipedia. Search4Lancer 17:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I got an email from Sealand, they did not confirm or deny the deal. So, that means, the above information should not be added until something by a third party mentions the deal. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Church and East are now carrying out all the renovations to sealand. They also have signage on the side of the fort [6]

Room enough for 300

"The facility (termed Roughs Tower) was occupied by 150–300 Royal Navy personnel" but HOW? Looking at the picture of Sealand I cannot believe that even 50 people can be accomodated... Verdi1 11:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that maybe after Sealand took it over, spaces were converted into other stuff. But I would really like to see what Sealand looked like when it was still under the control of the Royal Navy. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Google:"roughs+tower"+-sealand, the first hit contains a picture, but I'm lost with the fair use legalese here, we can't simply copy it, or can we? -- Omniplex 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
This is fine; I just had not seen anywhere on the web of what Sealand looked like when it was called its' former name. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see what the forts looked like when they were in millitary use I would suggest looking at Bob Leroi's scrapbook on his website[7] As for the idea of fitting 300 people in them, they were rarely that full but often had a crew of in excess of 100


On a further point I have just seen from companies house in the UK that Havenco as a company has been disolved! [8]

Claim that Sealand is "unrecognised"

According to multiple sources, Sealand's independence was recognised by a British court ruling once, and the Foreign Office later cited that ruling when the German government asked them for assistance getting back their citizen who had been jailed in Sealand for treason, piracy, and insurrection. When the British gov't begged off, it is said that a German diplomat arrived in Sealand to negotiate the release of the prisoner, indicating a de facto recognition of the sovereign status of Sealand.

So, while it may be said that no nation has established a consulate or embassy in Sealand, that some have, in fact, recognised it diplomatically and judicially as a sovereign country. For this reason, I believe the claim that Sealand's independence is "unrecognised" is false. Can we discuss?Citizenposse 02:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We've had that hundred of times. Neither of those actions was in any way a recognition of this sorry excuse of a hobby, and that's it. —Nightstallion (?) 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV, anyone? Search4Lancer 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but we've been through this a dozen times already, and I'm talking about 2006 only... —Nightstallion (?) 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sealand is a country

not a micronation. Humphry 20:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

For some it's the mother of micronations. But definitely no country. Take it to Talk:Sealand. -- Omniplex 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Better I do that, I don't want such crap on my talk page. -- Omniplex 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

End the madness.

This thing is relatively easy to demolish. Why don't the british just ruin it, that would be no problem, since they built it in the first place. The War on Terror is perfect justification for that, since such an anarchic place in the close vicinity of Britain poses great danger for the safety of an important ally of USA. Especially considering the fake passports they make.

Interesting theory. Why don't you ask them? --Centauri 08:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

your a maniac. Sealand is a great country (in which Bates did NOT die) and you dont understand micronationalism. Sir Robert Castellano 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's such a great country that we're going to call it a country, not a "micronation". Let's call it for what it is. Watercool
Sealand is a micronation, not a sovereign state, so please stop making changes to the article which wrongly suggest that it is. If you continue to do so you may be blocked for breaking the W:3RR. --Centauri 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So then, if Sealand is not a soveriegn state, but it doesn't abide by the laws of any nation, then what is it? From what I see, this has become a debate over people who support Sealand and those who don't.ACfan 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
What does any of this (the post that started this little section) have to do with improving the item? The talk page is not a place for people to add thier opinion of the piece, its to discuss improvements. Take the discussion elsewhere. This talk page is already hard enough to get around in without irrelevent drivel being added to it. Shortfuse 00:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fire

Apparently, there was a fire on Sealand a short while ago, and now much of it is in ruins. This should be added to the article.


There should also be somthing about what will happen after this. Could this be the end of sealand?

EDIT: I just reread the fire part and look there already is.--Scott3 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Several people added the fire section. I have not seen anything else about Sealand and her fate. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
the BBC gives the damage at 500,000 Pounds; Sealand says over 1 Million USD. Sealand is running a paypal type donation thingie to get cash to fix up the place. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunken ship?

In the legal status section, the follwing statement can be found: However, as Roughs Tower is actually a sunken ship, some have claimed it is not covered by these rulings. Sealand declared that it, too, was extending its claim of territorial waters to twelve nautical miles at a similar time to the UK.. I don't understand the sunken ship part. Can someone explain me this? Mário 22:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the article. Sealand is a specially-designed barge named HMAS Fort Rough that was deliberately sunk by the Royal Navy during WW2. --Gene_poole 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Anyway, it isn't a sunken ship in the common meaning of the term. Cheers! Mário 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

sea territory change

Since the 1968 UK court decision, the United Kingdom has extended its territorial sea to twelve nautical miles (22 km), which it had the legal right to do under international law since 1958 (although the necessary Act of Parliament was not passed until 1987). - OK, this sounds to me like the territory was changed in 1968, but some editors state that it was 1987. which one counts? I would like to know so I can update my map Image:Map of Sealand with territorial waters.png if needed -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The UK extended it's territorial waters by 9 nautical miles in 1987 by an Act of Parliament. The old limit was 3 nm. The new one is 12 nm. By the sound of it the 1958 date probably refers to some sort of international convention on sea boundaries that Britain was a signatory to - although that's only a guess. If so, and if the UK chose not to act on it until 1987, then the old boundary legally applied until 1987. --Centauri 09:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
In this case, the text in the article should also be changed to reflect this. What impact/significance did the court decision have? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Errr it does actually say it already. What court decision? --Centauri 10:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, now I get it. I just read the paragraph, and it sounded like the court extended the territorial rights in 1968 (although I doubt the court could do that). I rephrased it for clarity. I will update the map soon. Thanks for the info -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
In the court case I think you're referring to the judge said that as Sealand was outside British jurisdiction (ie beyond the 3 nm limit that applied at the time) he was unable to rule on the case. --Centauri 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, finally got around to fix the image. I also uploaded the openoffice.org source file in case someone else wants to modify it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

References

The references in this article are unintergrated; not up to the standard of a featured article. Minglex 17:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bates Family section picture

No offence meant, but the picture looks like it's been photoshopped to give HRH breasts. It actually looks like breasts, nipples, and a bra. Anchoress 06:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it could look that way... However, when you compare it to the source, it is the same, just lightened/enhanced. Search4Lancer 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

History section

[9] Histrory section was removed by vandal a while ago. Guess we have major work to do. SYSS Mouse 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Transfer?

Could we have more context on what a transfer is as opposed to a sale? It's somewhat unclear in its current manifestation. Cjs2111 22:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a valid nation?

In 1978 a German court ruled that Sealand was not a valid nation: "A man-made artificial platform, such as the so-called Duchy of Sealand, cannot be called either 'a part of the earth's surface' or 'land territory' and only structures which make use of a specific piece of the earth's surface can be recognised as State territory within the meaning of international law." (In re Duchy of Sealand (1978) 80 ILR 683, 685 (Administrative Court of Cologne))

Why didn't Germany or Netherlands rule Sealand as a valid state? If Sealand held hostage of German and Dutch citizens, German or Dutch armed forces shall be allowed to invade Sealand and rescue their own people. -- Toytoy 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing that really caught my interest in this passage is the potential precedent set by the statement "only structures which make use of a specific piece of the earth's surface can be recognised as State territory within the meaning of international law." I'm just thinking how this could come into play in the far off future, when we have some sort of large space-station attempting to assert independence. Macroidtoe 03:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That is easy. Current international laws only govern what is here on Earth. They don't govern Martians and their claims for land on Mars for example, but they are the law that govern land claim disputes made by countries here on Earth. So I don't see a problem from the viewpoint of current international law on large space-station (maybe on another planet) asserting independence. Having said that, international law is constantly changing and may one day govern Martians land claims :p. Kommodorekerz 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
However, back in reality the only real 'international law' is that a state is an area which can defend itself against all attackers. If no-one can invade your Mars colony, then you're a state whether others recognise you or not. Mark Grant 15:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's an interesting article on Extraterrestrial real estate you all might get a laugh out of. See especially the section "Moon for sale?" NipokNek 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This site(archived) has some interesting legal analysis (albeit peppered with a lot of NPOV ranting) on the validity (or otherwise) of Sealands claims to soverigenty
Wales is a principality, and Prince Charles is the person who represents the Crown of the United Kingdom in the Principality of Wales. But Wales, unlike Scotland is not an independent state. Scotland is a separate country which shares the same Crown as England within the political sovereign structure of the United Kingdom.
Monaco is a principality - but it is not an independent state - because it is partly controlled by France, and its Prince rules that principality by permission of France. Should there come a time when the male line of Monaco dies out in the ruling royal family, then Monaco is supposed to return within the borders of France itself. The Principality of Monaco, as such would be no more.
To date no member of the Bates Family has produced any documentation to suggest that Roy Bates has been made "Prince Roy" by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, nor has anyone ever produced a document to show from what existing sovereignty this ... "principality" is supposed to draw its legal authority. A principality is subject to a primary sovereignty, just as a prince is subject to a king or queen. So from which monarch and from which sovereignty did Roy Bates gain a legal title for himself as prince, and from where did his make-believe state... which he calls the "Principality of Sealand", gain its legal legitimacy? The answer is that it never happened. 80.229.222.48 21:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference to sale

The following link appears on today's Yahoo page:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070109/od_nm/island_dc

Jackiespeel 16:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

What will happen to Sealand if, due to global warming, the ocean level rises to a point where Sealand is totally underwater? Will the name of the country be changed to "Underthesealand"? Will the country then be recognized by Aquaman as an independent entity? Stay tuned for details..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.100.21.70 (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Found an excellent article with lots of details

I never edit Wikipedia articles and don't intend to do now. However I found the Sealand article very interesting and did some research after reading it. Finally found a very informative article with lots of details and facts which never made it to wiki and sometimes contradict with the stated facts. So future editors take a look at http://agitpopblog.org/index.php/?cat=13. It's in German, which is not my first languague so I refrain from making edits myself. 87.111.19.155 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sealand for sale?

It was reported at CBC online that Sealand is for sale [10]. It does state in the article that some European courts have upheld its independence. Does someone want to look into this and update the article? 137.82.40.33 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Michael Barrie, 16:04, 9 January 2007 (ET)

I believe the reference is the British court decision in 1968 that Sealand was outside British jurisdiction at the time. Certainly no major European countries recognise Sealand as an independent country. Kommodorekerz 09:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

copyvio

This diff is an almost exact copy-and-paste of text from this ABC article. It really ought to be rewritten. Jordan Brown 05:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted a rewrite using information from the archives and other sources. Kommodorekerz 09:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Principality"

Why does the lead say "Principality of Sealand"? Is there a source out there that refers to it as such? If that's the way it is referred to as by its "owners", then it should be mentioned as such. No?Baristarim 12:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The official website uses "Principality of Sealand", see link at the bottom of page. Kommodorekerz 13:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic sentence about Law of the Sea

The article says

"According to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there is no transitional law and no possibility to consent to the existence of a construction which was previously approved or built by a neighbouring state. "

This sentence is so ambiguous (and possibly incorrect) as to be unintelligible. What is it trying to say? What is a transitional law and how could it come into play here? There is no possibility for who to consent -- a state? How can someone not have the possibility to consent to the existence of something? Surely it is my right of free speech to consent whatever I want, whether someone asks me or not. Do you mean "contest" instead of "consent"?

As it stands, the most coherent interpretation I can find is that if state A builds a construction or approves the bulding, then a neighbouring state B has no right to agree (consent) that the construction should exist. Or perhaps state B has no right to agree that the construction exists. Ridiculous! -Pgan002 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dollars/Pounds sterling

I have added a contradictory tag to the section on coinage. It alternately states that one "Sealand dollar" is valued at 1 dollar and 1000 (pounds?) sterling by "locals". Besides having no explanation for the huge variance in value, it is unclear who values which at what. Savant45 23:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The claim that its value is 1000 pounds was added by a user that added a lot of nonsense to the article on friday. I think it's safe to say, this was another act of vandalism. I'll remove it and your tag. V 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Edit War Brewing

Perhaps we need some discussion about whether or not information about The Pirate Bay's attempt to raise the purchase price to buy Sealand is worthy of inclusion in this article. I will throw in my thought that they certainly seem sincere in their desire to purchase their own micronation (island, disputed nation, whatever...) NipokNek 06:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of disclosure I will mention that I am a member of buysealand.com and have made a donation to them to help their cause. NipokNek 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it needs mention. They need roughly a billion USD. Wikimedia has been fundraising for a month and doesn't even have one million USD. A billion dollars is a lot of money. This is a pipe dream. --Indolences 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That's simply one man's POV. Verifiable facts are worthy of inclusion. The very fact that it is such a huge task makes it MORE relevant, not less. And besides, the estimate begins around $100 million at the low end. That's a much more attainable amount. NipokNek 05:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Remember the people we're talking about; the people too cheap to buy CDs and movies. You think they're going to pony up 100 million? --Indolences 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I refer you to my previous statement. NipokNek 09:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction - it's the opinion of at least 2 people. Nobody on this planet is ever going to pay a billion dollars for a decrepit WW2 gun platform. Anyone that serious about acquiring it could easily fund an invasion force to take it by force for vastly less than that - and the Bates' couldn't do a thing about it. --Gene_poole 06:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

While the Pirate Bay may not be serious about buying Sealand, this still does not change the fact that it has brought Sealand tons of publicity over the issue. Probably over 90% of the people reading the article are reading it because of the Pirate Bay bringing Sealand into the attention of the public. This makes the whole situation noteworthy and definatly warrants at least some inclusion into the article. Not including it because it may not be feasble (in your point of view) does not mean it isn't notable. --Dr. WTF 05:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Nobody said the Pirate Bay bid shouldn't be included in the article - merely that the inclusion shouldn't be mischaracterised as a serious likelihood. --Gene_poole 02:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I see it the other way around; It was a publicity stunt for "The Pirate Bay". --Indolences 05:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay updates - Lets all help to keep the news current and correct...

Well, I'm seeing information that says they might have already dropped their plans to try and buy Sealand, but the referenced link isn't working. Probably cause Digg has been hammering them all day. As soon as I can prove it's not a hoax, I'll add whatever I know about it here. Here's the link I was attempting to follow... [11] NipokNek 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong link (oops). Here it is... [12] NipokNek 09:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The link now works - As I suspected, it doesn't actually say anything about TPB giving up on Sealand. NipokNek 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I cleared the pirate bay stuff as it is not going to happen afterall (who would have thunkeded?)--Indolences 00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Until you can verify that (Remember wp:v?) it's your opinion, and changing the article is vandalism. At the very least, you should have added the information about the supposed buyer. However, seeing how neither the Sealand website, nor the folks at TPB seem to know anything about this, it doesn't currently meet the criteria to start removing properly sourced materials from the article. I am reversing your edit, but will also include information about the possibility of the purchase having already happened, as required by wp:npov. As I stated elsewhere, I would have rathered someone else who can read the site in it's original language make that post, but I seem to have little choice now. NipokNek 10:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind. It's becoming a uphill battle defending this page and I'm tired of doing it alone. Do what you please, and the rules be damned. NipokNek 11:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

According to Swedish IDG (article in swedish) an Kazakh person claims to have bought Sealand, the source for this is in Russian though so someone need to verify it see centrasia.ru. The Bureau of Piracy tells IDG.se that they are still negotiating with Sealand and keep a "plan b" to buy another island. -- brother (@persilja.net - not a registered user *wink*) 7:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sealand bought

Sealand was bought by a Korean man a couple of days ago. Kirils 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite a reliable source. TomTheHand 16:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php4?st=1168809000 Kirils 16:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Here [13] is the Google Translated version of that link. I'd prefer to see someone who is a native Russian speaker post about this, but so far it seems legit. NipokNek 16:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I am a native speaker. I won't give my right arm for it, but the article seems OK to me. Kirils 16:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I only meant that since I was not a native speaker, I wasn't going to post it on the main article page, since I don't trust automatic translations not to miss some fine points. NipokNek 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Kirils
Is someone going to add it to the page then? I would, but don't want to jump into your conversation and edits :) JoshHolloway 18:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that if you're feelin' froggy, then by all means jump! :) I've already stated why I'm not adding the info myself. NipokNek 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
i just got a summary from a russian speaking friend of mine. however, she says the buyer is kazakh, not korean.
Was fake. Kirils 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OH MY GOD

Oh my god, how sad is this, a 10 person platform being classified as a 'minination'. Get a life people. They even made money and stamps? How lame! I'm suprised the British government hasn't done anything about it.

"In 1967–8 Britain's Royal Navy tried to remove Bates. As they entered territorial waters, Bates tried to scare them off by firing warning shots from the former fort" JoshHolloway 22:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, I meant in modern times (2000s), why hasn't the government done nothing?

At the top of this discussion page (or "talk page") the following text can be found:
"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sealand article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."
as well as:
"Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)." V 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One would assume that the British government wouldn't want the publicity of "invading" something that it has maintained is not a nation, but an abandoned military structure. Or they figure it'll just sink into the ocean like several other forts did.--Unexplainedbacon 06:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

genuine update or vandalism?

Was this edit really an update? If it was, shouldn't there have been a source? V 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I put it back. If someone objects please report here.--Indolences 08:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Making this a FA again

Here is the version which was labeled as "Featured Article" [14]

I say we look at this as a model for the current article. --Indolences 19:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sealand a nuclear power?

I know the world started to slide downhill after Kreblakistan went nuclear, but now Sealand too? Anyway, that bit must be a fib. If they did send Chuck Norris in, the entire North Sea'd be a cauterised death zone by now. MachiavellianMeow 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't post nonsense on this or any other talk page. --Gene_poole 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't postin' nonsense. I was alerting the others who frequent this page that someone had added a large section stating that Sealand had become a nuclear power, was holding the Northern Hemisphere to ransom for the trifling sum of US$15 billion, had repelled attacks by the Royal Marines and Green Berets, and so on. Check the edit history yourself, if you like. For your convenience, here is the link to the old section.
Sure an' I know that maybe I shoulda' changed it myself, v-a-v WP:ACM, but heck, I don't watch the news that often, so it coulda' been true, I guess. Chuck Norris an' all. And hey, it got changed, didn't it? By the looksa' the timestamps, before I even finished typing my message. Shucks, what timing; I'm impressed. MachiavellianMeow 23:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You original comment had no context, as you didn't provide a link to the problem edit in question. Without any context it came across as nonsense. --Gene_poole 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, sure. I guess I figured anyone who came by the talk page by way of the article woulda' noticed the section, so I wouldn't have to lead them down the garden path. Hell, I ain't gonna argue about it. Article's fixed; s'all I care about. MachiavellianMeow 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec...helocopter?

I've read this artical a few times but this just struck me. Where did roy banks get a helocopter? Furthermore,how many people constitutes armed assistance? And lastly is the aforementioned helocopter was a rental, are there not laws concerning concerning the transportation of of weapons or the participation in counter-coups? I mean, the world might want to know about a sealand airforce. As far as I can see the information is not sourced. --Wilson 16:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A Helicopter is probably the most conveniant way to get onto the platform, so he could've just bought one. Applying laws regarding counter-coups, would imply recognising Sealand as a nation which most established countries seem reluctant to do. I don't think the helicopter itself had any weapons, so calling a single consumer-grade helicopter an airforce is a bit over the top. I'm not sure of the reliability of the following links, but they're quite interesting:
All three mention the helicopter. V 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. The events in question are documented in dozens of reliable sources, including the BBC and others of similar veracity. --Gene_poole 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not questioning that. I was trying to answer some of Wilsons questions. I stopped searching after the first URL that didn't seem to get its information from wikipedia or one of the official Sealand websites. I see now that
  • McCullagh, Declan (2003-08-04). "Has 'haven' for questionable sites sunk?". CNET News.com. Retrieved 16 July 2003. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)(continued further down) V 03:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I was querying Wilson's post, not yours. --Gene_poole 10:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I'm more used to people incrementing indentation by one in regard to the comment they are replying to, rather than using method 2 from the talk page guidelines or whatever you used (and I should've used different markup in my 2nd comment, though I'm not yet sure which). V 20:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
mentions the event (and is listed in the bibliography section of the article). However, if you know which of the paper sources goes into more detail regarding that event or if you know a URL or title/author/date of a newspaper article or book that can act as a reliable source, then feel free to mention it here or in the article. V 03:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Gene_poole. I won't correct your comment any more since it seems you actually intended it to be where it is (smack in the middle of someone elses comment.) NipokNek 12:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They probably do not even have the helicopter anymore, the picture on the Sealand website is at least 20 or so years old, either that or its just sitting somewhere Sloveniaiscool 02:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will clearify some of my comments: The part about counter-coups and an airforce was tounge in cheek.Wilson 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC) Assuming Roy rented the helocopter and hired a pilot, carrying weapons would be illigal(as far as common sense and my limited knowledge of british law is concerned). But if they were not carrying weapons calling they armed in the artical "Bates thereupon enlisted armed assistance and, in a helicopter assault, retook the fortress." is unwarrented. I'm just saying if you wanted to get a helocopter for something like this it would (possibly) be difficult and (possibly) expensive. Ok, what's next...oh yah right. Is armed resistence the proper neutral term, I'm talking about the relative vagueness(2 men?,5?,10?). the first link avoids calling them armed,and the second only mentions they had a helocopter. If you conceed that the helocopter is considered a weapon in and of it's self the quoted portion is still sorta wrong. Hope I cleared something up. --Wilson 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

These might be dumb questions...

1. What are those two tower-like structures used for? 2. How do people get on the platform? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.197.170.118 (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

The towers are there for support and have I believe have rooms in them. Getting on the platform requires taking a boat out and then being lifted with a crane-type contraption(visible on picture, I think). No question is dumb unless you already know the answer. --Wilson 12:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move

I think this is wrong. -Indolences 01:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The established general convention for micronation articles is to use the full name of the entity as the article name, eg Province of Bumbunga, Principality of Marlborough, Kingdom of Sedang etc. Few people know what "HM Fort Roughs" is. The primary reason most people have heard of it is because of the "Principality of Sealand" - which is what the name of the article should be. Unless anyone has any particular objections I propose re-naming it accordingly. --Gene_poole 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see User talk:N-edits#Sealand for some info I posted on the talk page of the guy who moved it. -Indolences 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely an odd move and an awkward name. The new title implies acknowledgement that HM Fort Roughs is also named Sealand. Principality of Sealand would seem to be the most suited, referring to the Roy Bates government, with HM Fort Roughs referring solely to the tower. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. I don't think the article should have been moved at all, but Principality of Sealand or Sealand (micronation) would have been better. This move definitely should have been discussed on this talk page beforehand. PubliusFL 05:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Sealand (HM Fort Roughs) → Principality of Sealand — IP moved the article to this curious title. Suggested title, presently a redirect, follows convention for Micronations. BlueValour 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support. Reasoning as above. BlueValour 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. I would prefer a move to Sealand, but Principality of Sealand is fine for now. -Indolences 20:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support with the hope to see a demerge into separate Principality of Sealand and HM Fort Roughs articles with distinct topics. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support move to Principality of Sealand per reasoning above and below. --Gene_poole 00:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom.--Húsönd 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose Officially all it is is HM Fort Roughs - this WP:UNDUE "principality" nonsense makes Wikipedia look ridiculous when compared to other encyclopedias.--Domitius 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Per the section of the POV policy to which you link, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth." The article appropriately states that Sealand's claims are not accepted by any recognized state. But this article is devoted to the micronational entity, and the article's title should reflect that. PubliusFL 21:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    Comment 99% of Wikipedia content is ridiculous compared to other encyclopedias. -Indolences 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    I've replied in the "discussion" section.--Domitius 21:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This proposal could use some talking over, as it has ramifications for other articles. If we move this article to Principality of Sealand instead of back to Sealand, there are a number of other moves that should be considered as well. Like Talossa to Kingdom of Talossa, Seborga to Principality of Seborga, and Lovely (micronation) to Kingdom of Lovely. Same goes for the reverse (if Sealand instead of Principality of Sealand, why not Atlantium instead of Empire of Atlantium?). Either course of action has POV, undue weight, and naming convention implications. Thoughts? PubliusFL 21:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is, none of these entities are "empires", "kingdoms", "principalities" etc from the mainstream point of view. If there are two possible points of view, a) Sealand is a principality, and b) it isn't, how is the article purportedly being neutral by picking only option a) and endorsing it in the title?--Domitius 21:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see that, which is why I noted that the proposed move has POV implications. But so does an article title which implies it's "really" HM Fort Roughs. I think Sealand is probably best, Sealand (micronation) if disambiguation is necessary. But I think the NPOV issue created by a title like Principality of Sealand is easily overstated. Acknowledging that that's what Sealand is called does not "endorse" Sealand as an actual principality any more than the article title Magic Kingdom suggests that Disney's flagship theme park is a sovereign state, or than the article title Flat Earth "endorses" the view that the Earth is actually flat. PubliusFL 21:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Then "Sealand" would be the name to go with. Sealand is not a joke. They take themselves very seriously (listen to this) and have been around for 40 years. Had this been around for 7 years I might agree with you. -Indolences 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion we need to be specific without going to ridiculous lengths. Sealand is the name of a shipping company as well as a micronation. Atlantium is the name of an Israeli water purification company as well as a micronation. Seborga is the name of an Italian municipality as well as a micronation. In each case I would propose "Maersk Sealand" vs "Principality of Sealand", "Atlantium (company)" vs "Empire of Atlantium" and "Seborga (municipality)" vs "Principality of Seborga" as the most logical naming convention - with separate disambiguation pages for "Sealand", "Atlantium" and "Seborga" and others as necessary. --Gene_poole 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The shipping company is called Sea-Land Service, Inc and only seven other pages link to that page. -Indolences 00:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Correction - there was a major global shipping company called Maersk-Sealand until 2005. It's since been renamed. --Gene_poole 01:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh thanks for the correction. --Indolences 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from Sealand (HM Fort Roughs) to Principality of Sealand as the result of a move request. We have a separate article for HM Fort Roughs. --Stemonitis 08:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In making the move, I had to push aside a previous article which was merged into this one. In order to preserve its edit history, it is now located at Talk:Principality of Sealand/Principality of Sealand. It has also left Sealand redirecting to Sealand (disambiguation), which I have reversed. --Stemonitis 08:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Distinction

Now that we have the move, I urge that that this article say as little about HM Fort Roughs as possible, and focus on the para-government of Paddy Roy Bates. "Sealand" i.e. "Principality of Sealand" is an organizational entity akin to a government, whereas HM Fort Roughs is a structure of concrete and steel placed and formerly run by HMG. They are and can be distinct topics treated distinctly. I didn't entirely realize that there already was an HM Fort Roughs article because it seemed that this article spends its initial core paragraphs talking about the tower rather than the micronation. And likewise, HM Fort Roughs should say as little about Sealand as is appropriate to the history of the tower structure. The wide majority of that stuff near the bottom of HM Fort Roughs about legal proceedings and current legal status belong here, not there. It has much more to do with Sealand-the-organization than HM Fort Roughs-the-concrete-tower. The way it currently is is rather FORKish. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The articles should link to each other and state their obvious relationship to each other, but stay in their own lanes as much as possible. That'll keep forking, redundancy, and inconsistency to a minimum. PubliusFL 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The original fork that created HM Fort Roughs was the work of a raving nutter with a personal vendetta against the Bates family who, surprisingly enough, didn't succeed in getting his POV inserted into this article. I concur with the view that this article should primarily be about the micronational entity, while HM Fort Roughs should be about the physical structure that the micronation occupies. --Gene_poole 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please adhere to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. BlueValour 02:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm familiar with WP civility policies. Notwithstanding this, my remarks constitute a demonstrably restrained of the editor in question, as the record of their contributions - and their subsequent acrimonius departure from the project as a result of numerous other unrelated disagreements with many other editors - clearly demonstrates. --Gene_poole 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be quite interested in hearing the precise set of circumstances under which refering to one of your fellow editors as a "raving nutter" would not be considered uncivil. Note: I don't dispute the characterisation - I'm just saying there are civil ways of describing people and their actions, and their are uncivil ways. NipokNek 08:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
He's not a fellow editor. He's a long-gone former editor about whom I chose to make a throw-away remark. I can refer to him as "a former editor whose contributions and general behaviour might lead one to reasonably conclude that he was certifiably insane" if you think a more PC approach is warranted. --Gene_poole 09:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Since you asked, I feel that following the generally accepted rules of personal conduct on Wikipedia is "warranted", yes. NipokNek 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

International assitance from the RAF

In the article it says that a RAF rescue helicopter was sent during the 2006 fire. Does anyone know if the UK ask for reimbursement of expenses? It seems like if they really want to be recognized as an independent nation the proposition is a double edged sword. Anynobody 06:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely, as to do so could be seen as legitimising their claim, something the UK government don't want to do. Bryson430 13:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sealander by Tycoon Entertainment

Has anyone read the recent blog article about Sealander, [15]. Worth mentioning?

Hayesgm 17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of image of the sinking of the fort

I don't think it is really needed. Lane5slacker 13:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that? I think it's pretty relevant. --Gene_poole 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Seemed informative to me, too. It didn't take up much space. Why remove it? PubliusFL 14:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It just didn't seem necessary. You don't see a picture of how you construct a house when you are talking about a specific house. Lane5slacker 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Everyone knows how a house is built. Does the average person know how a Maunsell Sea Fort is built? I think not, and the way it is put in position is interesting and stuff. -Indolences 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It depends on what you're saying about that specific house. If you describe how some particularly ingenious dome was constructed, a picture could very well illustrate that.
The text describes how the fort was constructed/put into place. There's a relevant picture available, why not use it? V 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

1990 court case?

Quoth the article:

HavenCo's founder, later quit and claimed that Bates had lied to him by keeping the 1990-1991 court case from him and that as a result he had lost the money he had invested in the venture.

But there's no indication in the article of what court case is being referred to... --Jfruh (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


This was referring to a case in the US regarding registering ships in Sealand (flags of convenience) The US ruled against allowing Sealand flagged vessels, but the case was never contested by the Bate's.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.68.245 (talk • contribs) 6 June 2007

I've added this information to the article

Bryan Henderson 22:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the following external links, as they are all valid, and are directly related to the subject. I have given my reasons for their inclusion alongside each link. If anyone believes that they are not related to the subject please discuss here:

bye bye template?

I don't have any particular feelings regarding that {{Sealand table}} is up for deletion; but in light, I drafted up the following. This article is frequently a point of contention so I'm not feeling very bold, but I wanted to suggest it and see what you think. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Principality of Sealand
Principality of Sealand
Motto: E Mare Libertas
English: From the Sea, Freedom
Anthem: E Mare Libertas, by Basil Simonenko
Sealand, just off of the Southeastern coast of England
Sealand, just off of the Southeastern coast of England
Aerial photo of Sealand
Aerial photo of Sealand
Capital
and largest city
HM Fort Roughs
51°53′N 1°28′E / 51.883°N 1.467°E / 51.883; 1.467
Official languagesEnglish[1]
GovernmentPrincipality
• Prince
Roy of Sealand
• Princess
Joan I of Sealand
Michael Bates
de facto
Area
• Total
0.00055 km2 (0.00021 sq mi) (233rd)
Population
• Estimate
20 (197th)
• Density
3,636,363.64/km2 (9,418,138.6/sq mi) (1st)
CurrencySealand Dollar[1]
Time zoneUTC+0 (GMT)
• Summer (DST)
UTC+1 (WEST)
Good effort, but I don't think we should treat Sealand, which is a micronation, on par with recognized nation-states. A more appropriate basis would be {{Infobox Micronation}}. PubliusFL 18:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The template up for deletion follows the format of the established micronation infobox template, which is what should be included here. --Gene_poole 23:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox Country or territory}} has been up for about 10 days now, should it be removed? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It was added by User:Henry_W._Schmitt, but I suspect that he simply did not know that there was a more specific template.--Straightpress 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See also #Micronation?--Straightpress 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Exile government and neo-Nazis

I followed the article's link to the exile gov't. Weird stuff! There's a lot of material on international Jewish conspiracies, how they perpetuate the myth of the Holocaust, etc. They also seem to place a lot of pride in being recognized by something called the "German Reich," which I'd assume is some sort of Nazi government in exile. Certainly seems worth mentioning in the article! (and certainly no more obscure than anything that's already mentioned)205.212.74.252 22:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything inside the hollow towers?

I was just wondering if there is anything inside the hollow towers that support Sealand? It seems to be like there should be, because the actual structure is not that large. —Christopher Mann McKayuser talk 18:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My bedroom and my guest quarters are in the North leg (along with a chapel and other bedrooms) The south leg is for commercial and industrial applications (servers, battery core, water room etc)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.68.245 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 June 2007

Note: The above IP address is assigned to Basingstoke College of Technology.--Straightpress 13:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

From HM Fort Roughs#1943: Dry dock construction: "The twin towers were divided into seven floors that provided dining and sleeping accommodation and storage areas for generators and munitions."--Straightpress 07:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

motto

In correct Latin the motto should be "mari", not "mare". "mare" is very rare.

True, but "mare" is what Sealand actually uses. So that's what this article should provide. Similarly, the Kingdom of Talossa's motto apparently is in incorrect Finnish. But that's the official motto. PubliusFL 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sealand News

I commented out a section on the "official digital newspaper" of Sealand because it seems spurious to me. The focus of the site appears to be on selling Sealand titles of nobility (for less than 20 GBP apiece), and the section was added by an anon IP whose entire editing history appears to consist of adding advertising links to articles. Does anyone know anything about the validity of this source? PubliusFL 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that site being site-pimped for quite a while now. I usually try to get rid of it unless it is used as a reference in <ref></ref> tags. -Indolences 14:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The site appears to be endorsed by Sealand - and Sealand certainly sells titles to anyone prepared to pay for them. --Gene_poole 07:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess you're right - it's listed on Sealand's official site. I knew Sealand sold titles to anyone prepared to pay for them, but I didn't know so little preparation was required (i.e., that they come so cheaply)! PubliusFL 14:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

territorial limits

The picture under legal status(the one concerning territorial claims) might need to be changed. It shows the original sea claim(correct), but the expanded zone stretchs right into Britian proper. 1.Sealand makes no claim to ownership of the coast. 2. It was expanding sea borders 3. when two borders meet,it is my understanding the middle line is taken to draw the border. --Wilson 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Map of Sealand and the United Kingdom, with territorial water claims of 3 NM and 12 NM shown.

Micronation?

Keeping with NPOV is it correct to say in the first sentence that this is a micronation if the claim is not universally agreed then it is incorrect that the first sentence should read so. Even if some nations may have recognised it sometimes it would seem from the article most nations have not recognised it most of the time. The first sentence should say what it is not what some/half/minority or even majority believe/want/claim it is.--Carlwev 13:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I converted it to {{Infobox Micronation}}. Reasoning:
  • While it is included in Wikipedia:WikiProject European Microstates, it is not listed at the top of that project page.
  • It is featured prominently at the top of Micronation.
  • It has no entry in Country code top-level domain.
  • It does not have formal diplomatic relations with any other nation.
  • Its permanent population is low (less than 100)
  • Its history is short (less than 100 years)
  • Its current habitable territory is artificial in that, prior to the construction of the fort, its location has been uninhabitable (underwater) for recorded history.

--Straightpress 14:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Stealth reverts: After the article used the correct template from July 2, 2007, User:Onecanadasquarebishopsgate changed the infobox back to Infobox_Country without so much as an edit comment on November 2. He did not changed the first sentence, he just did a reverted without an edit comment. That is ridiculous. A well-formed Template:Infobox_Micronation is in the history, in case anybody else wants to restore it. Oh, now I see that he has also pushed his POV by reverting the efforts of other editors to use the correct template. I also note that rather than working with Template:Sealand, he went and created his own template Template:SealandNavigation and pushed it onto all the articles that previously used the original template. What ever happened to consensus and collaboration? This guy is pushing his POV against multiple editors. He should be forced to discuss the matter or we should escalate this to the admins. This is an uncommunicative editor: he has the habit of simply blanking his talk page.--Straightpress 17:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8
  1. ^ a b "Principality of Sealand - Fact File" (in English). Retrieved 2007-05-10.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Sealand/Archive_5&oldid=1085443655"