Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Sealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Principality of Sealand

[edit] Votes

This 39 kB page is impractical to scan for the progress of the VfD debate. This section extracts the nomination & entries that cast non-superceded votes. Note that the explanations of votes may not make sense outside their context; to see them in their respective contexts, dive into the following sections. --Jerzy(t) 07:49, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Redundant vanity article created by MPLX in order to promote a POV not accepted by consensus at the original Sealand article. Note that this is NOT a VfD for the original Sealand article. --Gene_poole 12:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Sealand. Obviously, we cannot allow duplicates of articles with each having a different POV. I'm not expert on this subject matter so won't comment on which article is more NPOV. If there's nothing sensible to merge or if attempt of merging results in a flamewar, then just convert this into a redirect. jni 13:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand. This article claims to be the 'undisputed' version. Is that not true? Of course in the long term is does not make sense to have two articles on the same topic. So it should be merged. But as the Sealand page has a disputed status, an undisputed version might have some value? Merge, when sealand is undisputed. Sander123 13:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I may have missed something here, but in what way is this defined as a vanity article? Nonetheless, merge and redirect. It is Wikipedia policy not to have duplicate articles, and if the original article is still POV, efforts should be made to remove that bias, rather than to create separate articles. Average Earthman 13:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect. If I'm reading this correctly, this person has already contributed heavily to the actual Sealand article, and this is just a rant that they wouldn't let him/her put in. If that's the case then there's probably nothing to merge. Plus, I know redirects are cheap, but who the hell would ever type in "Principality of Sealand" before just trying "Sealand"? - Lifefeed 15:27, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect. Contents an attempt to avoid consensus, alternate names of countries should be redirects to wherever the article for the country is. --Improv 15:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the master Sealand article. Inky 20:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The possiblity of somebody typing this in the Search box merits a redirect to the main Sealand article. Lord Bob 22:20, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Since Principality of Sealand has only 1 major editor, first merge that to Sealand (be careful to keep NPOV), then move Sealand to the location Principality of Sealand. Merging history is probably the best idea. Then either redirect Sealand or disambiguate if needed. —siroχo 23:00, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect one to the other, keeping the content of what is at Sealand at the moment. Which name ends up the article and which ends up the redirect, I don't think really matters. Shane King 23:30, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Anything of value to merge into the existing Sealand article? I don't see much. Mostly quotations and non-notable trivia (like nickname of nation's founder). Simply redirect or use above suggestion to move current Sealand] content to Principality of Sealand page and create a new disambig page for the multiple possible Sealands. Niceguyjoey 23:53, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Duplicate articles are unacceptable. RickK 00:38, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. That is, the encyclopedic article currently at Sealand should be moved to Principality of Sealand, while Sealand (disambiguation) should be moved to Sealand. If there is any useful information in the unencyclopedic article currently at Principality of Sealand, then merge it in before moving the other page over it. What a mess. ~leif ☺ HELO 09:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd agree with that. Average Earthman 09:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Merge and redirect as described by User:Leif above. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:17, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with above. Gzornenplatz 16:23, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • In agreement with ~leif ☺ HELO so far: 5 contributors (including me!) Now can we also resolve the issue that is going to arise as soon as we try to accomplish this task? The details are as stated by Gzornenplatz in the paragraph below concerning the use and interpretation of the word micronation which appears on the very first line of the Sealand page. - MPLX/MH 18:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Our policy is not to put an article at the subject's correct legal name, but to put it at the most common name, the one a reader would be most likely to enter in the search box. (One commonly cited example: Bill Clinton is the article, William Jefferson Clinton is a redirect.) By that standard, the article should be at Sealand, with Principality of Sealand being a redirect to it, as set up by Fuzheado. MPLX/MH, I see that you've been editing Sealand. That's the right way to go. You should insert into that article any notable facts it now lacks, correct any POV it now contains, and follow the normal Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes for any differences that develop about specific changes. JamesMLane 08:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - The information here is more comprehensive about some facts and less POV about some than the Sealand page is. I have been reading about the issue and trying to work towards NPOV for quite a while. Both sides are pushing their POV pretty hard. The leftover article should be at Sealand, the common name. - Taxman 00:15, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. No opinion on which location to prefer or where to put the disambiguation page. --Michael Snow 00:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The 39 kilobytes

Reformatting for clarity by Jerzy(t) 07:49, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC).

Redundant vanity article created by MPLX in order to promote a POV not accepted by consensus at the original Sealand article. Note that this is NOT a VfD for the original Sealand article. --Gene_poole 12:31, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Please note that the entry by Gene Poole that is now listed above, was originally listed below the entry that now follows. It was moved after I wrote my original response. MPLX/MH 22:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    The "entry by Gene Poole" was the nomination. Soon after MPLX improperly posted what now follows ("my original response"), the nominator put them in their proper sequence. (Why MPLX thinks anyone noting the corrective move should care about it escapes me.)--Jerzy(t) 07:49, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
    • I "cared about it", as you put it, because what would in the ordinary sense be a normal editing job in either contributing new material or revising material became subjected to a hostile attack on me by the person identified by you. The key to the hostility swirls around the fact that this entire problem hangs on that person's disputed interpretation of this subject by linking it to the disputed article micronation. I have now discovered that I am one in a long line of contributors who has run afoul of this same person. I had no idea at the time that anyone cared about a pecking order, I saw it as a duplication to cause more problems and that was my mistake in understanding the intent at the time. That is all. MPLX/MH 18:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I am MPLX/MH. Since I have not commented here before, please allow me to do so now by stating the following undisputed facts:
    • I did not create the "Principality of Sealand" page or the "Sealand" page. They both existed before I first registered with Wikipedia. Therefore the accusation that I have created a vanity article is both unfounded and unkind.
    • In addition to the two pages mentioned, there are also several others linked by the Sealand (disambiguation) page. You will notice that there are several places and entities called "Sealand" and that all other entities, except for the "Principality of Sealand" are not in dispute.
    • The proper name for the disputed entity is by its own choice of name on its own website: "Principality of Sealand".
    • The most common use of this name depends upon circumstances. In the UK it is RAF Sealand in the area of England called Sealand. In Holland there is also an area in English known as Sealand. Anyone standing by freight railroad tracks in America will sooner or later see the word Sealand on freight containers going by. Therefore to apply the non-qualified use of the word Sealand to a disputed fringe entity as part of a world encyclopedia is very much a POV act in and of itself (especially when the entity in question calls itself the "Principality of Sealand".)
    • I will not comment in depth on the merits of the "Principality of Sealand" within this discussion since it limited to the issue of the status of an article. However, I do wish to point out that the person calling himself Gene Poole has chosen to attack me personally for merely posting documented facts about the so-called "Principality of Sealand". I will draw your attention to the fact that this person has already become embroiled in disputes with other writers. I did my best to communicate with Gene Poole on a friendly basis only to find that he was then posting comments of his own in article updates in which he would substitute his own for mine by calling my own "hysterical". I hardly think that is objective or friendly.
    • With regards to the accusation by Gene Poole that I have an ax to grind, my answer is that I have personal knowledge of the fraud and financial harm that has already been caused by the so-called "Principality of Sealand" entity. My experience is first hand. I have indeed spoken to Roy, Joan and Michael Bates. I have also communicated with Ryan Lackey and I have read what he has to say. I have heard from HM Treasury Solicitor (and many other UK governmental and legal entitities) on this matter who told my associates that the claims made for the "Principality of Sealand" are in his word and I quote: "drivel". He was speaking for and on behalf of HM Crown. I have personally investigated most of the legal claims and one the most important is one that was issued by the USA at federal court level with UK participation in 1990-1991. It has never been challenged by the Bates family and it states that the "Principality of Sealand" does not exist. It was that legal opinion which Ryan Lackey cites as one reason for him to quit and accuse the Bates family of lying to him.
    • The debate over whether the "Principality of Sealand" does exist as a legal entity has been created by Gene Poole who seems to have invented a new definition of the word "micronation". According to Mr. Poole a "micronation" is not an actual nation or even a recognized nation or even peoples like the Kurds or Palestinians or any other controversial but real peoples that possess their own language and culture; in this case, according to the definition of Mr. Poole, a "micronation" is something that exists simply because something has been given a name and reported upon somewhere.
    • What Mr. Poole objects to and what he has called "hysterical" is my use of the word fantasy to describe the so-called "Principality of Sealand". I also equate it with the Flat Earth Society which has its own Wikipedia entry.
Please observe that my contributions to the Principality of Sealand page have been made by stating what the subject is, not what the subject cannot be. The difference between the two approaches is this. On the Sealand page it begins by trying to debunk a fantasy, rather than stating that it is a fantasy. That is hardly the way to write an intelligent article. What I have added to the Principality of Sealand page is the reality of evidence or provision for it to be added. Might I suggest that instead of merging a factually based page with a page based upon error, that we merge the error based page (minus the error) with the Principality of Sealand page since that is the true name given to this entity by Roy, Joan and Michael Bates.
Finally, I decided not to contribute further to the error based page because of the fact that Gene Poole has decided to attack anyone who dares to point out that his own POV in this matter is based upon fantasy and error? I am more than happy to have an intelligent discussion, but I am not prepared to debate that which is commonly accepted as reality with someone who chooses to have an aggressive and none too kind self-appointed interpretation of reality. To me such discussions belong with debates about whether we are living on a flat or a global planet. Mr. Poole then turns around and accuses anyone with a contrary opinion as expressing a POV while attempting to leave the impression that he is the authority on micronations, which he may very well be if he is the author of both the term and its definition. However, he has yet to convince the rest of the world that his view of reality is correct and that everyone else is in error.
MPLX/MH 21:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Please do not misrepresent the views of others. Numerous editors have disagreed with your POV concerning Sealand on the Sealand talk page, not just me. You elected not to address them with supporting documenatary or other citations, but instead simply repeated your POV in an increasingly strident, longwinded, bombastic manner, as I note, you have also done above. Furthermore, my pointing out to you your failure to grasp simple legal concepts, and recommending that you cease defaming people does not constitute abuse; it constitutes sound advice. Need I remind you that not only did you initially claim that defamation did not exist (!) as a legal concept, you then completely misinterpreted its meaning in law by attempting to discuss it in the context of an inanimate object. --Gene_poole 22:19, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • You assert that I have have a POV yet you disclaim a POV.
      I wrote to you originally in a friendly manner and you responded by posting that my comments were "hysterical" because they did not agree with your own.
      You brand my comments as “vanity” yet you claim to be an emperor of a “micronation” and proudly display a photograph of yourself in full regalia which is taken at your flat. A little hypocritical of you?
      You attack others as well as myself and find yourself embroiled in arbitration, yet you try to drag me into your disputes. My response has been to avoid you - until you began anew with this tirade.
      With regards to the law and fraud, it was Ryan Lackey who founded Havenco with the Bates and then quit - after he found out that he had been deceived and "lied to" (his words), by Bates and lost a lot of money. I know of other ventures where the same thing has happened because of this fraud.
      With regards to law I have attempted to show the differences in law between real property and personal property and even real estate. We are not discussing real estate but a sunken barge occupied by squatters.
      With regards to misrepresentation, you were the one who hit me over the head with your interpretation of this word “micronation” to allow for a fantasy to be rebranded as a reality merely because the press has reported it and many people have read about it.
      Again, if you want to merge these pages that is fine with me but I suggest that you merge into the proper name and that you do not import fantasy without identifying it as fantasy.
      I am happy to answer any questions regarding what I know about this subject, all I ask is that you treat me with the same respect that you would like to be treated with and that we stick to the universal understanding of what is accepted to be real and what is accepted to be unreal or fantasy.
      MPLX/MH 22:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Sealand. Obviously, we cannot allow duplicates of articles with each having a different POV. I'm not expert on this subject matter so won't comment on which article is more NPOV. If there's nothing sensible to merge or if attempt of merging results in a flamewar, then just convert this into a redirect. jni 13:00, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The original article has had dozens of contributors over a long period of time, and whilst it has not been without its controversies it does represent a good and fairly objective consensus of general opinion on the subject - including much useful data provided by MPLX. The new article is simply 1 person's highly charged POV.--Gene_poole 13:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand. This article claims to be the 'undisputed' version. Is that not true? Of course in the long term is does not make sense to have two articles on the same topic. So it should be merged. But as the Sealand page has a disputed status, an undisputed version might have some value? Merge, when sealand is undisputed. Sander123 13:13, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It is "undisputed" by it's sole author MPLX, who has a very obvious axe to grind on the subject of Sealand. I would like to stress that much useful data provided by MPLX has already been incorporated into the original article. This new article simply represents his efforts to insinuate an unacceptably extremist POV on the subject into Wiki; that POV has not gained any form of consensus support when discussed at length on the original article's talk page.--Gene_poole 13:22, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Ok, bear with me. Although I still think 'merge and redirect', I'd like to get an understanding of what the real problem is. I've read both pages and some of the talk pages but I was not present during the discussions. To me they both articles seem reasonably npov. Although the Sealand page is clearly more elaborate. What is his "obvious axe to grind"? Sander123 16:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • In reply: I have no "obvious axe to gind." What I have stated is that the entity upon Rough Sands is not real property or even real estate but personal property. It is a former Royal Navy barge that sunk on Rough Sands. It is claimed by the UK Ministry of Defence as successor in interest to the UK Ministry of War who put it there, by means of clearly marked buoys paid for by UK taxpayers. (See the external links on the Principality of Sealand article. It does not make any sense describing what it is not, only what it is. MPLX/MH 22:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • See above evidence of the axe MPLX is grinding. His position boils down to the claim that because Sealand is not a natural island it does not exist. Obviously it does exist, irrespective of whether it is a natural island or not. He does not seem to understand the difference between de facto existence and de jure existence. --Gene_poole 22:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Okay, here's Gene Poole again trying to claim POV is the same thing as factual evidence while confusing the issue. What he stated is NOT what I am stating. I am not stating that "it" does not exist. What I am stating is that a sunken barge exists and that in law a sunken barge is not real property. It has nothing to do with defaco or dejure existence and neither have I EVER made such a claim. What I am stating is that the entity called "Principality of Sealand" is a fantasy on a level with the Flat Earth Society. The Planet Earth exists and the sunken barge exists, but the Earth is not flat and the barge is not real property under the meaning of the law - it is a sunken ship occupied by squatters. Regarding reality and fantasy: This is what the Bates family have to say on their own "Principality of Sealand" web site:
        "Sealand was founded on the principle that any group of people dissatisfied with the oppressive laws and restrictions of existing nation states may declare independence in any place not claimed to be under the jurisdiction of another sovereign entity. The location chosen was Roughs Tower, an island fortress created in World War II by Britain and subsequently abandoned to the jurisdiction of the High Seas."
      The problem with that statement is that it is untrue on its face. Roy Bates, who is British, has gone to great lengths to state that he is proud to be British. He has made no attack on Britain because it is an “oppressive” nation, just the opposite is true. He defended the UK when he was in the British Army and he claims to have defended it again during the Falklands War. However, Bates then claims that Rough(s) Tower is an island fortress when in fact it is a sunken barge with a superstructure above the waterline. He states that it was “abandoned to the jurisdiction of the High Seas” which is totally untrue as evidenced by the UK Ministry of Defence buoys that surround the sunken barge on Rough Sands sandbar. MPLX/MH 00:00, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The above is a good example of MPLX/MH confusing reality and fantasy in order to promote his POV on this subject. He claims the Flat Earth Society is a fantasy, in order to demonstrate that Sealand is also a fantasy, while the truth of the matter is that the Flat Earth Society has a documented historic existence, exactly as Sealand does. Like Sealand, the Flat Earth Society is (or was) a real, organised group of real people who exist in the real world and produce real publications and artefacts and conduct real activities, meetings and general interactions with other real people. The very fact of their existence is a legitimate subject of reportage in Wiki. He suggests that because these groups embrace eccentric non-mainstream opinions the groups themselves do not exist, which is a logical fallacy. --Gene_poole 00:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • What you have demonstrated Gene is that you are the one who is confusing the issues here:
      I am in TOTAL agreement with the idea to merge the two pages! Since the Sealand page has a ambiguous name that is already linked to a Sealand (disambiguation) page, then the obvious thing to do is to use the Principality of Sealand page for the article.
      Now to your main point (which is where the INTENTIONAL confusion on your part is coming from. I claim intentional because I don't know how many more times I can repeat that I am NOT denying that a Flat Earth Society exists, but I am denying that a Flat Earth exists! I am NOT denying that Roy Bates was in a pub when he told reporters that he told his wife Joan that he would make her a princess. I am not denying that Roy Bates began to claim that the Royal Navy barge that he was squatting upon is the "Principality of Sealand". I do NOT deny any of that because they are facts. What I do deny is that the Royal Navy barge is anything other than a Royal Navy barge and I also deny that a pint of beer or whatever else Roy Bates was drinking at the time, gave him any authority to turn his "British subject" wife (at that time) into a "royal princess", or that he could copy Her Majesty the Queen who was about to name (at that time) her son as the Prince of the Principality of Wales and name himself the "prince" of the "Principality of Sealand" with anything more tongue in cheek laughter.
      Roy Bates exists, the Flat Earth Society exists (or has existed) and a sunken Royal Navy barge exists on Rough Sands sandbar marked by UK Ministry of Defence buoys. But Roy Bates is no prince and the Earth is not flat and the barge is not an island and the buoys prove that it was never abandoned. What bothers me is that this great encyclopedia is being subverted to report fantasy as fact or even place fact on the same level as fantasy so that the reader cannot determine which is true and in turn turns Wikipedia into an unreliable joke. Now that bothers me because I love Wikipedia!
      MPLX/MH 01:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I may have missed something here, but in what way is this defined as a vanity article? Nonetheless, merge and redirect. It is Wikipedia policy not to have duplicate articles, and if the original article is still POV, efforts should be made to remove that bias, rather than to create separate articles. Average Earthman 13:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • You are correct, it is not a vanity article and the page existed before I contributed to it as you will see by checking the history of the page itself. I am in agreement with everyone's idea to merge the pages, but the big question is: which way? The correct name of the entity is "Principality of Sealand", because that is the name given to it by Roy Bates who claims ownership of the entity. His own web site also uses this name and this is the name used in his own logo. Therefore the logical thing to do is to merge the Sealand page with the Principality of Sealand page and leave the Sealand (disambiguation) page to redirect to all of the many other uses of the name "Sealand". MPLX/MH 22:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect. If I'm reading this correctly, this person has already contributed heavily to the actual Sealand article, and this is just a rant that they wouldn't let him/her put in. If that's the case then there's probably nothing to merge. Plus, I know redirects are cheap, but who the hell would ever type in "Principality of Sealand" before just trying "Sealand"? - Lifefeed 15:27, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect. Contents an attempt to avoid consensus, alternate names of countries should be redirects to wherever the article for the country is. --Improv 15:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • If you look at the history of the Principality page, you see that the page used to be a redirect. The redirect is much older than the article that is there now. Since "Principality of Sealand" is the name used by some of the involved parties I would suggest to keep. As you see redirects are cheap. Sander123 16:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the master Sealand article. Inky 20:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The possiblity of somebody typing this in the Search box merits a redirect to the main Sealand article. Lord Bob 22:20, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Since Principality of Sealand has only 1 major editor, first merge that to Sealand (be careful to keep NPOV), then move Sealand to the location Principality of Sealand. Merging history is probably the best idea. Then either redirect Sealand or disambiguate if needed. —siroχo 23:00, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I am in agreement with your idea to merge, but I suggest that since the proper title is "Principality of Sealand" that the "Sealand" page is merged and not the other way around. Before merging I also suggest that all POV and fantasy material is either identified or removed first. By the way, as noted above, a Sealand (disambiguation) page already exists due to the many correct uses of this name. MPLX/MH
  • Redirect one to the other, keeping the content of what is at Sealand at the moment. Which name ends up the article and which ends up the redirect, I don't think really matters. Shane King 23:30, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • To merely redirect means to delete and since the proper name of the article is the name of the article you want to delete, that does not make sense. Then there is the issue of content. There seem to be a number of people who are more intent on deleting content than admitting content which reveals the fraud and fantasy of the article. By this I refer to the admission by Ryan Lackey that Roy Bates had lied to him and that he had lost a lot of money over the Havenco project. The lie was concerning the concealment of the 1990-1991 USA court case. Why does anyone want to preserve the pretense of this fantasy which has turned into a fraud without documenting that it is a fantasy and a fraud? You don't start out an intelligent article by trying to disprove a fantasy, you merely state the reality and fit the fantasy into it and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. MPLX/MH 23:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't care what name the article takes, I explicitly stated that (I can see arguments both ways). My only real preference is that no matter what happens, one ends up redirecting to the other, and the content of that article uses the current content of Sealand (which I feel is the better page) as a starting point. You're welcome (and encouraged) to merge the content currently at Principality of Sealand into that article, providing other people agree with your changes. Shane King 01:59, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Anything of value to merge into the existing Sealand article? I don't see much. Mostly quotations and non-notable trivia (like nickname of nation's founder). Simply redirect or use above suggestion to move current Sealand] content to Principality of Sealand page and create a new disambig page for the multiple possible Sealands. Niceguyjoey 23:53, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with you. However the Sealand (disambiguation) page already exists. MPLX/MH 00:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • PLEASE NOTE: I am in total agreement with the idea of merging! This is what I wrote back in October on the Talk page relating to this article (it is still there for reference):
      This article page was created specifically for an article about the "Principality of Sealand". However, at this time there is no entry on the Principality of Sealand page other than a redirect to a page named Sealand. That page contains partial disambiguation and the article about the "Principality of Sealand". However there now exists a more complete Sealand (disambiguation) page. In order to straighten this mess out the article presently on the Sealand page should be removed here and the redirect link on the Principality of Sealand page should be removed and a redirect inserted on Sealand page to the Sealand (disambiguation) page. MPLX/MH 15:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    MPLX/MH 00:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Duplicate articles are unacceptable. RickK 00:38, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. That is, the encyclopedic article currently at Sealand should be moved to Principality of Sealand, while Sealand (disambiguation) should be moved to Sealand. If there is any useful information in the unencyclopedic article currently at Principality of Sealand, then merge it in before moving the other page over it. What a mess. ~leif ☺ HELO 09:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Agreement and Basic Cause of Dispute
  • Having already agreed (above) with Average Earthman and User:Leif and Wile E. Heresiarch regarding solving this problem, please permit me to introduce the reason why there is a dispute in the first place. It concerns the very definition of the so-called "Principality of Sealand" on the Sealand page. The definition is found in the very first few words of the first line of the article and it concerns the word "micronation".
As stated on this page by me many times (boring!), I am not the originator of either the Sealand page or the Principality of Sealand page and neither am I the originator of the micronation page or the origin of this dispute!
You can find the origin on the Talk page of the micronation article. On that page is the following statement by Gzornenplatz with whom I am also in total agreement. This is what Gzornenplatz wrote on the micronation Talk page:
"I hereby declare that I maintain the disputes raised before regarding the POV nature of the term "micronation" as used here, contrary to its dictionary meaning, as well as regarding the misinformation link to Gene Poole's website that mixes real entities like Biafra and Katanga, which led to wars causing the deaths of millions, with trivial nonsense like his apartment-empire Atlantium. Gzornenplatz 13:37, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)"
If the issue as outlined above by Gzornenplatz is cleared up once and for all, then a whole slate of disputes - including this one will suddenly vanish and life will return to normality within the understanding of the majority of contributors to Wikipedia concerning what is real and what is fantasy.
Further clarification: Small states such as Malta which have real territory and a real population have been defined in Wikipedia by the word microstate, although I cannot find this word in the edition of Webster's Dictionary that I consulted. Neither can I find the word micronation which has been introduced (as explained by Gzornenplatz) to describe an entity which would not qualify for description by the word nation.
Therefore if this new word "micronation" is to be understood within the meaning of the accepted definition of the word nation, it would mean a very small nation. However, as Gzornenplatz points out, that is not the meaning that is being given to it on Wikipedia under the entry for micronation. By the way, that page is also disputed.
As a result of associating the name "Principality of Sealand" with a definition that does not exist in any accepted and agreed to interpretations of the English language, then the fiction of the "Principality of Sealand" (outside of its existence in media generated stories), is being supported by its definition in the fiction of the word micronation which has been implanted on Wikipedia by the same individual who began the entire dispute.
Once that fiction is removed it can be clearly stated in the first sentence that:
"The Principality of Sealand (so-called) is in reality a name given by squatters to their occupation of a partially submerged Royal Navy barge marked for identification by UK Ministry of Defence buoys at Rough Sands, United Kingdom.
That is the true definition of this entity. It would be useful to understanding this subject by reading the Wikipedia article on squatters - with particular reference to the United Kingdom - who have always claimed ownership of the Royal Navy barge in question by means of buoys. MPLX/MH 18:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, your proposed language is POV and is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. RickK 19:47, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay RickK I will accept your own POV if you can tell me exactly which part of the following is not a statement of fact: "The Principality of Sealand (so-called) is in reality a name given by squatters to their occupation of a partially submerged Royal Navy barge marked for identification by UK Ministry of Defence buoys at Rough Sands, United Kingdom.
    • This discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page instead of here, but anyway...
    • Obviously, the word squatter is being used in a pejorative context, and the people you're referring to wouldn't agree with you. I suggest that the first sentence stick to the indisputable facts, and subsequent sentences explain the differing POVs. For instance:
      The Principality of Sealand a partially submerged Royal Navy barge marked for identification by UK Ministry of Defence buoys at Rough Sands, off the coast of the United Kingdom. The platform's occupants since 19?? have claimed that they are an independent state, while governments and critics have written them off as mere squatters with no legitimate sovereign status.
    • Any objections to something like that? Feel free to copy my comment to an article Talk page if appropriate. ~leif ☺ HELO 20:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Okay, so essentially what you have trouble with is the word squatter and nothing else? If that is the case then let me address that issue. The word squatter has a legal definition - it is not a pejorative statement. It is only by the act of legally squatting that any one could possibly claim ownership of what was HMS Roughs (or HM Rough's) since it was a Royal Navy vessel and it has been marked to the present day by Ministry of Defence buoys - not by anything that Bates put in the water. In fact he was warned not to do so and he did not do so. However, like any squatter Bates only has control of the vessel, not the sand or sea bed under the vessel and the Crown Estates do claim that territory. I agree with you that this is not the proper forum for this exchange, but I am pleased to see that this spirit of agreement is continuing and it is certainly one that I feel both happy and comfortable in cooperating with. Please have a look at the article on squatters and look at the related links - especially those concerning the United Kingdom. MPLX/MH 22:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Our policy is not to put an article at the subject's correct legal name, but to put it at the most common name, the one a reader would be most likely to enter in the search box. (One commonly cited example: Bill Clinton is the article, William Jefferson Clinton is a redirect.) By that standard, the article should be at Sealand, with Principality of Sealand being a redirect to it, as set up by Fuzheado. MPLX/MH, I see that you've been editing Sealand. That's the right way to go. You should insert into that article any notable facts it now lacks, correct any POV it now contains, and follow the normal Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes for any differences that develop about specific changes. JamesMLane 08:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • JamesMLane: Are you aware that a Sealand (disambiguation) page exists? It contains many legitimate mainstream uses of the name "Sealand", not the fringe meaning that is attached to this one controversial entry? To do as you suggest would merely confuse matters more. Further, although I originally contributed heavily to the Sealand article I eventually gave up when it became obvious that one person in particular had invented a word and definition which I cannot find in any other responsible dictionary and then implanted that page on Wikipedia in order to support the nonsense on the Sealand page. That word appears in the very first line. Therefore I have been editing and contributing to the Principality of Sealand page which now contains a lot of new material. If you will take the time to read above you will notice that several people, myself included are in agreement with a merger of the two pages on the Principality of Sealand page and moving the Sealand (disambiguation) page contents to the Sealand page. Please read the comments by Gzornenplatz on this matter because he has addressed the core of the problem. MPLX/MH 14:31, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • For some terms that have more than one meaning, [[Term]] is a disambiguation page, which is how you suggest we handle "Sealand". An example would be Robert Jackson. For other such terms, however, [[Term]] is the article about one of the meanings, with a link at the top to [[Term (disambiguation)]] to accommodate the others; see, for example, Excalibur. I incline toward the latter treatment for "Sealand". As for disputes over how we discuss Sealand, such as whether to use a particular word or to call someone "Head of State" (which you mention below), I express no opinion about any of the specifics, because I haven't taken time to read your arguments or anyone else's. Your solution doesn't magically dissolve those problems, though. If some editors want to say "Head of State" and some don't, that disagreement will persist whether the title is Sealand or Principality of Sealand. We could do exactly as you suggest, following which someone edits the Principality of Sealand article by adding the information box, and then where are we? We're back at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which is why I commended that link to your attention. JamesMLane 18:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • The problem with what you are advocating is that you have not taken time to read this topic which is rubbish. But it is more rubbish and that is why I am trying to resolve this mess. In this instance this particular use of the word "Sealand" relates only to the "Principality of Sealand" which is a hoax and a scam. It has resulted in no end of harm and financial loss and fraud. There is not just one "Principality of Sealand" claim, either. There are two of them and they are related, but until I put it on Wikipedia it was not there. Only the POV Bates story was there. However, before I had a chance to turn the stub of the German "Principality of Sealand" into a full article, one person had marked it for deletion and two others were debating it by the time I uploaded the full article! What kind of reasoning is this? People want to edit and delete without even reading the material in the first place?
        • Here is what I want and others seem to be in agreement:
          1. Move the present Sealand (disambiguation) page to the present Sealand page;
          2. after moving the non-POV and non-duplicated material from the present Sealand page to the Principality of Sealand page ...
          3. then, having merged it all into a new non-POV article that does not begin by using the word micronation whose use and interpretation seems to exist in order to confound and confuse fantasy with reality (the actual word is microstate), then
          4. I am also for merging the German story (which is in English) at Fürstentum Sealand with the Principality of Sealand page.
        • That is a lot of work and I don't particularly want to do it, but I will if no one else wants to.
        • MPLX/MH

[edit] More Legal and Editorial Difficulties to consider
  • Right now there is a Sealand page and a Principality of Sealand page relating to the activities of squatters on the former HMS Roughs on Rough Sands, United Kingdom. However, the Sealand (disambiguation) page makes it perfectly clear that several reputable and a handful of not-so-reputable entities also make use of the name "Sealand".
The present Sealand page is not only inaccurate' as to its name but it is also highly POV on at least two grounds:
  1. By including the side bar showing a "Head of State", etc., it implies that Wikipedia is acknowledging that more than a fantasy entity exists called the "Principality of Sealand" because in the body of the article it goes to great lengths to describe how others have used the name and that the name belongs to a sort of "true government" versus an upstart government when in reality, there is no government because there is no population and there is no country called the "Principality of Sealand".
  2. Whoever wrote the original article on the Sealand page was highly POV in favor of Roy Bates because the rival claim to the "Principality of Sealand" has been swept aside as if a sensible decision has been made by Wikipedia to confer rights on the fantasy of Roy Bates! For proof I cite the web page at "Principality of Sealand" which claims that: "Please note that sovereign power of the Principality of Sealand cannot be exercised by the deposed Roy Bates or his collaborators."
Now what kind of nonsense is this for Wikipedia to be engaging in? That is why since most are in agreement with merging (including me), that the Sealand (disambiguation) page contents should be removed to the present Sealand page and the present contents on the Sealand that are not POV and not duplicated on the Principality of Sealand page be incorporated on that one page along with the contents of the Fürstentum Sealand page, since that page links to the rival claims to the "Principality of Sealand" which anyone can find on the web. By not including that material it implies that Wikipedia has made some sort of decision as to which claim to the name "Principality of Sealand" is the true claim. Since neither Bates nor his rivals have gone into a court of law (how could they?) to sort their claims out, then Wikipedia should not be adding to the fantasy by making its own defacto ruling in favor of Bates. The entire saga is foolish and it has generated fraud all over the place. Because I have been repeatedly challenged to document my assertion to criminal fraud I am also in the process of adding a lot of new tedious (believe me it is tedious!) material to back up by assertion.
I do not believe that it is a sensible course of action for Wikipedia to take sides in a POV dispute as to who is the legitimate owner of a fantasy country which has no basis in reality. It is what it is: a former Royal Navy barge partially submerged in British territorial waters on Rough Sands, United Kingdom.
MPLX/MH 17:02, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Principality_of_Sealand_5a96.html"