Talk:Principality of Sealand/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Featured Article

Is it possible to bring the Principality of Sealand article back to Featured Article status? This article was a featured article and was "Today's Featured Article" for 28 December 2005. Also, this article is a featured article in 2 other languages, so this task should not be too difficult. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be possible, with the right amount of work, to achieve that outcome. I'm not quite sure why it was un-FA'd; there's always been a small clique of editors who have a problem with micronation content generally, so it might have had something to do with that. --Gene_poole 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Preposterous. If you'd take the time to look, you'd see that at the time the article was defeatued, it had a mere eight citations and was riddled with {{Fact}} tags. Pagra shtak 05:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well there are 32 citations in there now, and the anti-micronation POV-pusher Wik has been permanently banned by Jimbo, so presumably once the few remaining fact/cite tags are dealt with, a new FA nomination should be a breeze. --Gene_poole 06:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Which remaining fact/cite tags need to be dealt with? I suggest placing a list here including all fact/cite tags that need to be dealt with, and after a fact/cite tag has been dealt with, it can be removed from the list using the <s></s> wiki markup. Once all fact/cite tags have been dealt with on this article, it can be nominated for Featured Article status. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list that I created including all information in the article that require citations. If no citation can be found the information can be deleted from the article. Use <s></s> wiki markup to show that a citation has been added to the article. Once completed this article should be able to be nominated for Featured Article status.

~~Paddy Roy Bates, a British subject and pirate radio broadcaster, who ejected a competing group of pirate broadcasters~~
~~Defended this claim on at least one occasion: in an incident in 1990, the Royal Maritime Auxiliary vessel Golden Eye was fired upon from Sealand.~~
There will be a trial in the Ciudad Real (Spain) provincial court against a man selling Sealand passports.
Roy and Joan Bates have been referred to internally since the foundation of Sealand as "Their Royal Highnesses Prince Roy and Princess Joan of Sealand"
Roy Bates is styled "Sovereign", and Joan Bates is sometimes described as being "in joint rule" with him.
~~Michael Bates's son James, who was referred to as "Prince Royal James".~~
~~As Sealand is not a recognised country, the Bates family officially travel internationally as British citizens.~~
He stated that his only legal recourse was to sue Roy Bates in a British court of law
~~Accepted without surcharge and passed by Belgian postal authorities into the international postal system at that time.~~
~~Although recent examples exist of mail bearing Sealand stamps and cancellations, to the exclusion of all others, being transmitted through the international postal system.~~
~~Sealand has many non-Sealanders acting as official national athletes, including mini-golf and football~~.
A Canadian University student is in negotiations to represent Sealand in International Amateur golf events.

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making a list here, you may find it easier and more productive to act {{Fact}} to the statements in the article. Pagra shtak 22:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

All the statements above already have {{Fact}} attached to them in the article, I created the list after they were attached by other users. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The list below shows all information removed from the article because no source could be found:

There will be a trial in the Ciudad Real (Spain) provincial court against a man selling Sealand passports.
Roy and Joan Bates have been referred to internally since the foundation of Sealand as "Their Royal Highnesses Prince Roy and Princess Joan of Sealand"
Roy Bates is styled "Sovereign", and Joan Bates is sometimes described as being "in joint rule" with him.
A Canadian University student is in negotiations to represent Sealand in International Amateur golf events.

If sources are found, then they can be added to the article, but as long as there is no source, I don't see why this information should be in the article. Most of the information in the earlier list did have sources, so I added citations.

Now that all fact/cite tags have been dealt with, I am nominating this article for featured article status. It now has 39 references, 31 more than when the article was demoted, and citations that were required have now been added. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article needs more references, supporting all the claims that are made. This will significantly improve the article's chances of being promoted. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence

Before this article's status as a featured article candidate ended, there was some confusion as to whether the article's first sentence ("The Principality of Sealand is a micronation") is correct. Here is what was stated:

Thanks for your changes, but I'm still not happy, even looking at the very first sentence: "Sealand is a micronation". The sources (except the Sealand News) do not support that. It's within British territorial waters. Their argument may have held when Britain's limit was 3 miles, but now it's 12 miles, the court rulings would probably be quite different and if they try broadcasting a pirate radio station again... DrKiernan 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Principality of Sealand does not see itself as a micronation, nowhere does it officially state that it is a micronation. When the Principality was founded, its territory was in international waters. It was founded before a law was passed by the UN stating that nations cannot be founded on platforms, and it was founded before the UK extended its territorial waters limit from 3nm to 12nm. The British and Sealandic territories therefore border eachother near the British coast in the North Sea. Sealandic territory must be considered because the Principality has many laws supporting its claim to sovereignty and has been recognised many times over throughout its history. Therefore, even if the UK does not recognise this, the Principality is not in British territorial waters and the court rulings during the time that the Principality was not in British claimed waters support this. I agree that the first sentence is misleading, micronation seems to be what the Principality was labelled as just because it has never been "officially" recognised by the UN or the UK. Some people consider it a micronation, and others a microstate. The problem with using microstate is that there are people who will argue that the Principality is not a country, and would sooner base this on their own opinions rather than legal facts. I suggest replacing micronation with microstate as legally (using facts which Wikipedia requires) it is a nation, but whether that edit would stay I can't guarantee. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have found a reference that shows that the Principality of Sealand does see itself as a microstate, and not a micronation. The reference can be found here. Therefore it is incorrect to state at the top of the article that Sealand is a micronation - the first sentence has to be changed. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What it sees itself as is a matter of note - but is also largely irrelevant from the perspective of taxonomy. What it actually is, is an ephemeral statelike entity - ie, by definition, a micronation. That is how virtually all reliable external sources refer to it. --Gene_poole 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But there are those who do not consider it a statelike entity, but a nation. Many of these external sources do not base their view of Sealand as a micronation on legal facts - it is just an opinion. This opinion has only been used because there are people who cannot accept that the Principality of Sealand can be a nation, even if there are legal facts to prove that it is a nation. To say "The Principality of Sealand is a micronation" would be against WP:NPOV because that sentence is just the opinion. What about those that do see Sealand as a nation? Their opinon isn't just an opinion, it is a statement supported by laws and facts. Why isn't this statement included into the article? There must be a way of rewriting the sentence so that it is a more accurate definition of the Principality. -- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence still is incorrect. It needs to be changed so that it agrees with WP:NPOV, and not with the opinion that the Principality of Sealand is not a nation. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is as correct and as thoroughly NPOV as anyone can reasonably expect given the odd nature of the subject of the article. Suggestions that Sealand is a nation (ie a group of people with a distinct historic shared cultural heritage) border on the ridiculous. A few dozen English citizens on a gun platform in the North Sea are not a nation by any accepted definition of that term, and as far as I'm aware no legal ruling has ever included such a pronouncement. At most Sealand is an historic anomaly dressed up with a bit of theatre by a savvy businessman with a flair for self-promotion. There's nothing wrong with that. But there's nothing really unique about it either. Principality of Seborga and Hutt River Province do the exact same thing. It's one of the common characteristics of micronations linked to actual real estate. In any case, the one thing most available sources agree on is that Sealand is a micronation, so that's the opinion that WP's article must properly reflect. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

However the Hutt River Province (and the Principality of Seborga in its current state) was founded on land claimed by a UN recognised nation. What makes the Principality of Sealand unique is that it was founded in, at the time, international waters. Also there have been many events in its history, which include UN recognised nations, that have supported its sovereignty. Several legal opinions have shown that Sealand is a nation. Neither the Principality of Seborga nor the Hutt River Province have achieved all of the above. What I have mentioned is just a fraction as to why Sealand is unique.

There are those who consider Sealand a micronation, and others who consider Sealand a microstate. The first sentence in the article states that Sealand is a micronation - this is just one of the views on Sealand's sovereignty. Why isn't the other view considered? Not all sources see Sealand as a micronation. This article is in Wikiproject European Microstates as well as Wikiproject Micronations. I think all Sealandic articles need to consider both views - that is the most NPOV it can be. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water. WP's NPOV and verifiability policies are not a license to give equal weight to fringe theories, and all sources are not created equal. If the BBC, Lonely Planet and other equally authoritative sources call it a micronation, and some guy in Canada who once ran in a marathon wearing a Sealand T-shirt says on his personal website that it's a sovereign principality, we definitely can't use the latter to "balance" the statements in the former. 3 poor sources do not trump 2 authoritative ones.

Some people may well believe passionately that Sealand is or should be a sovereign state because there are apparently unresolved questions concerning its legal status - but the practical realities of its physical situation - lacking in all natural resources necesary for human survival, entirely dependant on the supply of goods and, as the recent fire highlighted -UK public services, not even a single resident who is not also a British citizen + plain old realpolitik make the likelihood of that ever happening extremely remote.

As it stands Sealand has no formal bilateral relationship with any state. Until it does so we can't give undue weight to the idea that its actually something more than a plain old garden variety micronation, which is what the weight of reputable sources agree that it is. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, here is an example of a region attempting to gain complete independence. Abhkazia is not officially recognised by any nation or international organisation. However it has a president and a prime minister and uses the Russian Ruble, not the Lari, as currency. Russia grants citizenship to Abkhazians. However we don't consider Abkhazia a micronation, even when there are micronations much larger than Abkhazia.

Sealand's sovereignty is not just a "fringe theory", to say that would be comparing its sovereignty to conspiracy theories. The arguments that support Sealand's sovereignty actually exist as recent official documents and recorded historical events, unlike many conspiracy theories. A letter from the Department of Health and Social Security [1] calling the fort "Sealand", the several stamps from UN recognised nations in a Sealandic passport, the visit of a German diplomat to the Principality. Here is a list of the sources for this information:

Department of Health and Social Security
Government of the Republic of Togo
Government of the Republic of Hungary
Government of the Syrian Arab Republic
Government of Mongolia
Government of the Republic of Bulgaria
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
Government of the Republic of Senegal
Government of the Gabonese Republic
Government of the Republic of Guinea
Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Clearly 10 UN recognised governments and an official department are much more reliable sources than the BBC or Lonely Planet. A Sealander, using a Sealandic passport, managed to gain access into all of the above UN recognised nations. This means the principality's sovereignty is not just a "fringe theory", similar in status to a conspiracy theory. Abkhazians currently would need a UN recognised nation's citizenship - it would be difficult to travel without it. Surely with this evidence for the principality's sovereignty the first sentence needs to be rewritten.

There are people who consider Sealand a micronation. If there are a suitable amount of sources and people that think that, then it should be included in the article. However there are also a suitable amount of sources and people who consider the Principality of Sealand a nation, so this should also be included in the article. The Wikiprojects seem to follow this - so should the rest of Wikipedia, it is correct NPOV. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the first paragraph, so that it is NPOV. It now shows both views rather than supporting one opinion. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your change. As far as I'm aware no authoritative third party source has ever classified Sealand a microstate. The inclusion of Sealand in the European microstates list on WP should be removed.

There is absolutely no comparison between Abkhazia and Sealand. The former has a distinct historic cultural identity and has the potential to be a viable state. Sealand has not, and does not.

Having a well-made micronation passport stamped by the customs authority of a recognised sovereign state is easy as pie, and is essentially a meaningless act. A stamped micronation passport doesn't mean the government of the country in question has somehow legitimised the claims of the micronation.

Again, this is not something unique to Sealand. Passports from the Conch Republic, Hutt River Province and Republic of Lomar have all been stamped by customs officers of real countries on dozens of occasions. In less sophisticated countries it's easy to get away with just handing over a nice-looking micronation passport to a non-English-speaking border guard, and it's unlikely they'll question it. In more sophisticated countries the practise is to hand over a real passoprt together with a micronation one get both stamped. The Hutt River people have been doing the latter when entering Australia for years.

Procedural oversights and documentary sleighs-of-hand of this nature are all very entertaining, but it means absolutely zip as far as legitimising the claims of the micronations in question go. Unless there is evidence of a formal bilateral relationship between Sealand and a sovereign state it remains a micronation. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Using "microstate" may be too specific, so I changed that to "sovereign nation". Undoubtedly there are people and sources that consider the Principality a sovereign nation - this should be included into the article. True, Abkhazia and the Principality are different in many ways, but to say that there is no comparison between the two is incorrect - they still have some similarities, and also to say that the principality does not have the potential to be a viable state is pure speculation which Wikipedia does not allow (WP:CRYSTAL).

The article being on Wikiproject Micronations and Wikiproject European Microstates is correct NPOV. This shows that both views of the Principality are considered - by not saying that it is undoubtedly a microstate, but also not undoubtedly a micronation.

Though the government of a nation may not recognise the Principality even after its custom officers stamped Sealandic passports several times, this still is recognition of its sovereignty. A customs officer of any nation should make sure that an unrecognised passport is not used at borders. Passports are official documents, if unrecognised passports are recognised, then the Principality's sovereignty is recognised by the government of that nation - whether intentional or not. Even if it is simple to travel to various UN recognised nations using an unrecognised passport - it does not mean that the government of these nations have not accepted these passports as official documents.

To agree with NPOV, the article's first sentence must be written so that it states both views of the Principality. The sources that show that the Principality is a sovereign nation can't be simply ignored. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable third party sources that support the contention that Sealand is a sovereign state. If you believe that there are, then please cite them.

Stamped passports do not legitimise the Bates family's claim that Sealand is a sovereign state. The status of sovereign state cannot be attained via documentary sleight-of-hand.

Sealand does not have a bilateral relationship with any sovereign state.

Ergo, Sealand is not a sovereign state, and WP cannot give undue weight to unsubstantiated, fringe notions which pretend or assert otherwise. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

When I rewrite the first paragraph, I am making sure that it is NPOV. There are several reliable sources that support the sovereignty of the Principality of Sealand - this isn't just an unsourced POV. Saying that the Principality is a micronation is a POV, if this POV can stay in the article why can't the other POV stay? That is correct NPOV. Stamped passports show de facto recognition, and the legal opinions do show that it isn't the Bates family that are the only people who claim that the Principality is a sovereign state.

Here are plenty of sources (a fraction of all the sources) supporting the Principality's sovereignty. I am not placing them here so that the word "micronation" can be deleted from the article - if there are sources that say that the Principality is a micronation, then that POV can be included in the article. I am placing these sources here so that Wikipedia users can see that there is another POV with sources and this POV must be included in the article - and not simply ignored. This is correct NPOV.

According to this, de facto recognition includes "diplomatic activities by representatives of the states involved in connection with tasks between states, relationships etc.;", for example when Germany sent a diplomat from its London embassy to Sealand. Roy Bates relented after several weeks of negotiations and subsequently claimed that the diplomat's visit constituted de facto recognition of Sealand by Germany.

De facto recognition also includes: "recognition and official endorsement with a visa of passports issued by the other state as travelling documents." This can be seen in the photographs of a stamped Sealandic passport:

There are also many legal opinions by various people stating that the Principality of Sealand under various laws is a nation. This can be seen in the copies of these legal opinions:

Legal opinion by Dr. Béla Vitányi (Professor in Public International Law, University of Nijmegen)
Legal opinion by Dr. Dr. Dr. Walter Leisner (University professor of law, full professor for constitutional law, administrative law and jus gentium in the faculty of jurisprudence of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, chairman of the Institut für Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht [Institute for constitutional and administrative law in Erlangen, department of constitutional law and international law)
Legal opinion by Briger & Associates Attorneys at Law
Legal opinion by L.W. Conway

Here are sources supporting the sovereignty of the Principality. This is not a fringe theory, these sources can't be compared to conspiracy theories. I don't see why a NPOV article on the Principality of Sealand would ignore this and support the POV that the Principality is a micronation. I think the article should consider both POVs. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be engaged in a rather circular discussion. Legal opinions (which for all we know may have been paid for by the Bates family) do not prove that Sealand is a sovereign state, and we cannot present them as though they do. They do not represent a weight of mainstream legal opinion - they represent a few anomalous fringe opinions. There are similar opinions concerning the Hutt River Province and other supposedly anomalous situations, and they mean precisely nothing, because none of them have ever been tested in a court of law whose jurisdiction is clear and unambiguous.

The opening paragraph already explicitly states that Sealand's situation is viewed as an interesting legal case study by some people. That's really all the mention of the sovereignty position that the article requires in order for it to comply with NPOV. We really need to leave it at that, rather than trying to promote the POV that because someone with a law degree said its a state, then that somehow cancels out the weight of opinion (both legal and otherwise) thatit isn't one and can never be one.

Frankly, it's totally ludicrous to assert that a decrepit WW2 gun platform in the English Channel which has no resources of any kind, entirely reliant on the UK, and with a population of a handful (at most) of British Citizens beholden entirely to one eccentric family in whose name the structure is occupied is anything other than what it appears to be - an unrecognised statelike entity - ie a micronation.

It is my personal observation that your contributions to this discussion are very much lacking in perspective, and I cannot help but wonder if you are somehow directly associated with or have an interest in Sealand. If this is the case continuing to strongly push the sovereignty POV is, to say the least, inappropriate. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not a Sealander, and have no association with the Principality.

Secondly, the Principality is in the North Sea, not the English Channel.

Thirdly :"Frankly, it's totally ludicrous to assert that a decrepit WW2 gun platform in the English Channel which has no resources of any kind, entirely reliant on the UK, and with a population of a handful (at most) of British Citizens beholden entirely to one eccentric family in whose name the structure is occupied is anything other than what it appears to be - an unrecognised statelike entity - ie a micronation." This is just an opinion. It is not a decrepit WW2 gun platform, it is a former Maunsell sea fort that is being restored. Define eccentric (another opinion) when referring to states such as the Principality of Sealand or micronations such as the Hutt River Province.

Finally, I am not attempting to push a POV. I am just following this official English Wikipedia policy:

Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. Neutral point of view advises that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally. An edit war is the opposite of this, with two sides each fighting to make their version the only one.

This isn't an edit war. The above paragraph states: "people with opposing opinions should work together to find common ground." Nowhere did I say that the POV stating the the Principality is a micronation should not be included in the article, but all of the above sources can't be ignored - they exist and challenge the label micronation - whether Wikipedia users like it or not. If this is the case, then the article should show the POV in support of Sealandic sovereignty. To rewrite the first sentence is to find common ground between two POVs. "Legal opinions (which for all we know may have been paid for by the Bates family)" - this is just speculation, no sources show this - no sources, no inclusion into the article. "They do not represent a weight of mainstream legal opinion - they represent a few anomalous fringe opinions." - once again - just a POV, no sources, no inclusion into the article.

"The opening paragraph already explicitly states that Sealand's situation is viewed as an interesting legal case study by some people. That's really all the mention of the sovereignty position that the article requires in order for it to comply with NPOV." If the POV that the Principality is a micronation can be in the article - then the other POV should be included into the article. It has sources, legal opinions based on fact - more then enough for a POV to be included into the article. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The sum total of your constant reversion of the opening paragraph's content by attempting to include unsubstantiated assertions promoting a fringe POV is very rapidly entering edit-warring territory.

The article already clearly and explicitly states that some people consider Sealand a sovereign state. Your repeated attempt to give undue weight to that eccentric fringe POV is completely inappropriate.

I strongly suggest that you moderate your attempts to promote the sovereignty POV and return your focus to improving the article such that it more fully complies with WP content policies generally.

Doing otherwise may leave you open to accusations of being a single-purpose account whose presence on WP is intended to actively promote Sealand. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

To say that the POV supporting Sealandic sovereignty is an "eccentric fringe theory" is just an opinion.
This POV has many sources based on facts and documents - it must be included into the article. What is written in the first sentence is "The Principality of Sealand is a micronation". This is the first sentence that is read - the first sentences of an article define what the article is about. This definition of the Principality is just one POV, and does not consider the other POV. If it did, it would be correct NPOV.
Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. All of the sources I added above are more than enough for the statement that "The Principality of Sealand is considered by some to be a micronation, but by others a sovereign nation." Notice that I am not deleting the POV stating that the Principality is a micronation - if I did, it would not be NPOV - but I think that both POVs should be considered, especially in the first paragraph - the paragraph that defines what the Principality of Sealand is. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I don't think that the first sentence of the lead paragraph is the place for the debate. The terms "micro nation" and "micro state" are both subject to a certain degree of ambiguity and thus may tend to add more confusion than clarity to the lead. The discussion of both definitions seems appropriate further into the article. I would avoid the use of either in the first sentence and only minimally discuss either or alternatives in the lead paragraphs. The salient issues here are the disputes on multiple levels that this is anything more than a chunk of concrete in British waters. I would also dispute the propriety of the article's title being "Principality of Sealand", since the independent soverienty is not clear. Regardless the story is facinating. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with avoiding the use of both microstate and micronation in the first paragraph. I think that there should be a section for both why the Principality is considered a micronation and why it is considered a microstate. That way the article is not referring to the Principality as a micronation or a microstate, but instead stating why it is considered a micronation and a microstate. However I don't think the title should be changed. Whether considered a micronation or a microstate - it is still called the Principality of Sealand, and there already is an article for the fort itself. I can't think of a title that would better define what the Principality is. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the title "Sealand (HM Fort Roughs) with a redirect from "Principality of Sealand" We can responsibly acknowlwedge that the owners now call it Sealand, but recognizing it as a principality in the title is POV pushing. Certainly we should discuss their claim. We don't typicaly use the political titles of recognized countries in the article titles, for example our articles are titled North Korea, Germany, or Saudi Arabia, rather than the Peoples Republic of or the Federal Republic of or the Kingdom of. The title of the article for the Principality of Monaco is simply Monaco. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a NPOV title - it shows the support for both microstate and micronation status. By naming the article Sealand and not by the Principality's political title, the article has a similar title to UN recognised nations (supporting Sealandic microstate status), such as Germany instead of Federal Republic of Germany, yet it also has the name HM Fort Roughs to show the support for Sealandic micronation status. The article would then begin with "Sealand, also known as the Principality of Sealand or HM Fort Roughs. I have also added a section for arguments supporting Sealandic microstate status and a section for arguments supporting Sealandic micronation status. The article no longer defines whether the Principality is a micronation or not, but rather explains the arguments for and against Sealandic sovereignty. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

These matters have been discussed at length over a period of nearly 5 years. The long-established convention for naming articles about micronations is to use the full name of the entity in question as promoted by the owner of the entity itself. The reason this convention was agreed to was specifically to differentiate these entities from sovereign states. Sealand is unquestionably a micronation (a fact that is explicitly acknowledged by the official news blog owned by Sealand), and its owners specifically refer to it as the "Principality of Sealand"; these are fundamental points of agreement supported by literally dozens of reliable third party sources. It is not our place to try to claim that it is something other than what it appears to be, and which the vast majority of sources assert it to be - nor to give undue weight to such frigne theories.

There is no ambiguity whatsoever converning the term "microstate", which refers to small sovereign states. As Sealand is unquestionably not a sovereign state that term cannot possibly be used to describe it. Furthermore, a simple google search for the terms "Sealand microstate" and "Sealand micronation" demonstrates that the latter is the accepted terminology in general use - by such an overwhelmingly massive margin that the former is close to being a statistical non-event.

Attempting to give Sealand some sort of "special" status by naming it in a different way from other articles about similar micronations is both extremely POV and highly inappropriate.

What is important is clearly, unambiguously and accurately defining what it is in the opening paragraph, based on the overwhelming weight of available third party sources - and that - like it or not - is a micronation.

--Gene_poole (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But as long as this article has sources supporting Sealandic sovereignty, the both POVs must be considered. You can't say that it is unquestionably not a sovereign state, because the sources question it. The long-established convention for naming articles about micronations doesn't apply here, the POV supporting Sealandic sovereignty must be considered for NPOV. That doesn't mean that we should ignore the POV supporting Sealandic micronation status. The references supporting that should go in the "arguments supporting Sealandic micronation status" section. This isn't giving the Principality a special status, some sources state that it already has that status.

Google does not provide all of the answers and sources for a POV. Of course you won't find all of the sources supporting Sealandic sovereignty on Google. Many of the sources supporting Sealandic sovereignty are in books and documents.

This isn't an attempt to give the Principality a special status. This is an attempt to improve the article so that it is NPOV - that is why the sections for both POVs were created. That is why the first sentence was rewritten so that it had neither POV. That is why the title should be changed. Nobody is trying to remove the word micronation from the article, but the word mcirostate, and all the sources (and there are more than enough) that support Sealandic sovereignty should be included in the article and should not be ignored. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the wholesale deletion of cited sources constitutes vandalism. You are very strongly advised not to do it again.

If you believe there are sources supporting your POV, then the onus is on you to cite them. So far you have cited a couple of legal opinions of unknown authority, which have never been tested in a court of law - a fact which is openly acknowledged by Roy Bates himself on his own official news site, which itself refers to Sealand as a micronation on at least 3 separate occasions.

Furthermore, the cited legal opinions "prove" nothing, and certainly do not constitute some sort of reputable alternative viewpoint which may be used to give undue weight to the fringe theory, supported by a tiny handful of individuals, that Sealand is a sovereign state.

As has been explained previously, NPOV does not mean "giving equal weight to all opinions". It means reporting the existence of differing opinions concerning a subject in a neutral manner, proportional to the general prevalence of those opinions.

There is NO evidence to suggest that the "Sealand is a state" POV is anything other than a fringe theory supported by at most a tiny handful of people, and it is entirely inappropriate for WP to give it equal weight to the "Sealand is a micronation"/"Sealnd is an eccentric joke" POV, which is the one embraced by the vast majority of outside sources and observers. --Gene_poole (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism and I wasn't deleting the sources entirely, they can be found in past versions of the article. I have deleted that "vandalism warning" from my page. Those sources should be in the arguments for Sealandic micronation status section. Also, Roy Bates does not own the Sealand News site - it became official, it did not start as an official news site. The Principality does not consider itself a micronation - to see what the Principality considers itself (microstate) see its official site.

"Furthermore, the cited legal opinions "prove" nothing, and certainly do not constitute some sort of reputable alternative viewpoint." This is just another opinion. "Sealand is a micronation"/"Sealnd is an eccentric joke" POV, which is the one embraced by the vast majority of outside sources and observers." Firstly a micronation does not necessarily mean an eccentric joke (eccentric joke is another opinion). Secondly I don't see any references stating that. The amount of sources on Google is not a reference - Google does not have all the sources that have ever existed. A high percentage of people agreeing to that opinion, with that percentage being published, would be a reference.

There is NO evidence to suggest that the "Sealand is a state" POV is anything other than a fringe theory supported by at most a tiny handful of people" Where's your reference for this? NO evidence - I don't think that's true. Where's your reference suggesting that the "Sealand is a state" POV is a fringe theory supported by at most a tiny handful of people?

All sources supporting Sealandic micronation status should be placed in the arguments for Sealandic micronation status section. I have cited my sources in the arguments for Sealandic microstate status section. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the place for the citations is not in the lead paragraph, but in the specific section below. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have placed the citations there. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately User:Gene Poole keeps on moving the citations from the "arguments for Sealandic micronation status" section to the first sentence and rewriting the sentence to "The Principality of Sealand is a micronation". What does this achieve? The section was created for those citations - I haven't placed the citations supporting Sealandic sovereignty in the first sentence, I put them in the correct section for NPOV. What I am doing is not vandalism, I haven't deleted the citations. I find the constant labelling of this edit as vandalism unecessary. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations do not constitute "arguments". They are external sources that support statements in the opening sentence intended to inform the reader what the article is about. Removing them turns the sentence into a nonsense. You appear not to have noticed that several of those sources - all of which refer to Sealand as a micronation - are actually from Sealand's own official news blog. If multiple reputable third party sources say that Sealand is a micronation, and Sealand's own official news blog also says it's a micronation, and no other reliable cited third party sources can be produced that say otherwise, then WP needs to reflect the accepted consensus that Sealand is a micronation. What WP cannot do is try to "balance it out" by giving equal weight to the fringe theory that Sealand is a sovereign state merely on the basis of citing 4 untested legal opinions and linking to a bunch of passport page scans whose origins are unclear. --Gene_poole (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said that the sources themselves were the arguments, the sources are supporting the arguments. The whole point of creating that section was so that users who have sources supporting the arguments for Sealandic micronation status can put them there. And I have noticed that several of those sources you added are from Sealand News - and as I stated earlier the Principality and Roy Bates do not control that site or own its copyright, it became an official news site - it was once unofficial. That site does not state what the Principality considers itself - see its official site. To say that those legal opinions were untested and that there are no reliable third party sources supporting Sealandic sovereignty is just speculation and opinion - I have never seen a source that has proven that. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Another 3O: First off, there's an RfC out for this page, so a third opinion is unnecessary. If one editor is being uncooperative, you may want to list the editor at WP:WQA. Having said that, Gene_poole, I would advise you not to keep making drastic edits, but rather discuss the issues at hand. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC - Sealandic micronation/microstate status

Dispute over whether the article is correct in only saying that Sealand is a micronation. No agreement between all Wikipedia users has been reached. 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The section on micronation status is abominable, I quite agree with kingboyk. The forced nature of the argument suggests that it is not a micronation. I would ask, however, what the essence of a micronation is. Should one not be a nation first? In which case Sealand fails.

--Bejnar (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A micronation is a state-like entity that is not recognised by any government and does not need to be a nation first. This is the problem - Sealand is unique. Not all unrecognised nations are micronations. So the question is - is Sealand a nation or a state-like entity? This is something that is difficult to answer on a NPOV encyclopedia because there are two POVs, a POV that supports its micronation status and a POV that supports its microstate status. Both POVs have sources that support them, so the only solution is to include both POVs in the article rather than a constant disagreement over whether Sealand is a sovereign nation. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To my eyes, the question woule be resolvable based on the explicit actions of other recognized governments; in short, if other states recognize it as a state, it is a state. The passport issues do not necessarily resolve this question, as several states "stamp" curiosities for later sale, first day covers and the like. Having said that, if there were other forms of official documentation other than the passport, I might be convinced otherwise. As the section is currently constructed, I believe it is extremely poor shape. It lays far too much emphasis on the passport. It would be simpler to include the passport photos as references to statements that the passport was stamped by Mongolia, etc. The short shrift given the possibility of it being a micronation is clearly to me a case where undue weight is given one opinion over the other, and the info regarding it possibly being a micronation needs to be expanded or the microstate information contracted. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree on using the passport photos as references with the governments that stamped the passport included in a paragraph in the microstate section. The micronation status section needs to be expanded with more references and an explanation of those references. Other nations don't need to recognise a nation for it to be a nation. Passports are stamped on behalf of a government, and unrecognised passports will be stamped. But these governments should make sure that unrecognised passports are not stamped - if they are they have recognised that passport as an official document. It dosen't matter if it was a mistake - it shouldn't have happened - that is one of the reasons passports are checked. The passport becomes a recognised document. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time seeing the problem with referring to Sealand as a micronation in the intro. It'd make the intro considerably less wordy. Most of the microstate/micronation debate section belongs in the legal status article, and is heavily unbalanced as it is. Bottom line: multiple published third-party sources call Sealand a micronation, and as far as I'm aware none call it a microstate. PubliusFL (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem - it would not be NPOV, and it dosen't matter if it is more wordy, there is always a way of improving the article so that it is NPOV. In fact, the intro is less wordy now - two words shorter. Multiple sources support Sealandic microstate status - and they are not all on the internet. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You say multiple sources support microstate status. Are any of those reliable sources, as defined by WP:RS? I don't think I've seen any yet. If two POVs exist, but only one is verifiable by Wikipedia's standards, the one that is not verifiable usually deserves little if any coverage in Wikipedia articles. PubliusFL (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example. The Lonely Planet Guide to Micronations does call Sealand a micronation, but it does show the reasons supporting microstate status - same with other sources on the internet. The sites themselves may not support Sealandic sovereignty, but there are reasons on those sites that show why Sealand is considered by some to be a microstate. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be yet another source that supports calling Sealand a micronation, but describing the arguments for statehood. If basically all the reliable published sources call Sealand a micronation, and discuss its claim to be a microstate, why shouldn't this article do the same? Isn't the approach taken by the source you cite the same approach that this article took with its old intro? PubliusFL (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Check Sealand's official website - they call themselves a microstate. Also, the above is just one example - there are many documents supporting Sealandic sovereignty - where are the documents that support Sealandic micronation status? I have never seen one. Here is my idea: state that there are references supporting Sealandic sovereignty and Sealandic micronation status. Rewrite the first article, use Empire of Atlantium's first paragraph as a guide. This seems to be NPOV and a better solution than the one thought of earlier. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, maybe some of this could be avoided if the article had just a few words explaining what is meant by "micronation"? Otherwise, I'm generally in agreement with PubliusFL. --kingboyk 13:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC) I've had a go at this. See #Better solution for diffs. --kingboyk 13:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

FAs need inline citations of course, so I suggest that many or all of the articles in the Bibliography might provide useful material. Any article with comprehensive footnotes only needs a reference/bibliograohy section to list books which have been cited as "author, page #" in footnotes. In other words, use the Biobliography articles for inline citations instead and scrap the Bibliography section if possible. --kingboyk (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sealand-related articles

They key articles are:

Principality of Sealand, which needs to focus on Bates' statelike entity, with some discussion of the legal issues and context (although the article has many flaws, it's quite well formed with regards to it's topics)
- Sealand dollar ---------- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  - Don't see it as a key article myself, but anyway: I've renamed it to "Sealand coins and stamps". The "Sealand dollar" is not a recognised currency and is just a bit of fluff/fun; however the coins and stamps are collectible and of interest to enthusiasts in that field. Furthermore, the article is more like a list of coins (what's the coin version of a discography??) --kingboyk (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Legal status of Sealand. Not a hugely long article, and suitably trimmed of fluff and opinion I think this could be merged here, which would strengthen this article.
HM Fort Roughs. Should focus on the structure itself and it's history. Currently has a lot of detail on law and Radio Essex, which I will attempt to ship out to articles where it's more relevant. Any text which doesn't belong there which I can't find a home for I will paste into Talk:HM Fort Roughs
Radio Essex (pirate radio station). Currently red, but there's a lot of background info in HM Fort Roughs which could make the basis of a decent article on the pirate radio station.
Paddy Roy Bates. Should be a biography, with the detail about Sealand and Radio Essex being in those more specific articles.

--kingboyk (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we also have Maunsell Forts so the Fort Roughs article is arguably superflous. --kingboyk (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I said I would try to take much of the text out of HM Fort Roughs and put it in Principality of Sealand, Legal status of Sealand, Radio Essex (pirate radio station), or Talk:HM Fort Roughs, but it's a bigger job than I envisioned. Anybody else interested in doing it? Or do you think that article is fine as is? --kingboyk (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Sealand

I see that Sealand-related articles need to be improved in many ways, so I think that a WikiProject Sealand should be created (see this). This page contains information on WikiProject Sealand - and how it will solve the constant POV disputes on Sealand's status. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a wide enough topic nor is there enough interested parties. I, however, may just be a grumpy old herbert :) Good luck anyway.

Whatever, I would like to see the article get to FA... but it's a long way off right now imho. [My interest in this comes via offshore radio and in particular Radio Caroline, btw.] --kingboyk (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

European Microstates

The reason why Sealand is in the project's scope is because it is considered by some to be a sovereign nation - and it is small, so these people would consider it a microstate. And its European. For NPOV, I think Sealand should stay in the WikiProject. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry pal, but participants of WikiProjects decide scope, within reason. They've chosen to include the sovereign states listed in the first paragraph of Wikipedia:WikiProject European Microstates, which is reinforced by European microstates. Inclusion is also rejected at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_European_Microstates#Sealand.

I don't know what axe you have to grind but quit grinding it and concentrate your considerable talents on making a neutral, well sourced article please! --kingboyk (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have thought of a better idea and wrote it above, maybe that way the article would be NPOV and there won't be a dispute over the POV - is this a better solution. If Atlanitum can have its article this way, so should Sealand. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Better solution

I changed the article so that it is similar to Empire of Atlantium. I know Atlanitum does not consider itself a micronation, yet many people call it that. This is similar to Sealand, so I thought this would be a better solution. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your latest version looks like a big improvement to me. The Atlantium article is a pretty good model, as micronation articles go. PubliusFL (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I will remove the Microstate/micronation status section, the change to the first paragraph seems to be NPOV now. This section is already part of Legal status of Sealand. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current revision is a marked improvement. However, I've removed the statement which claimed that Sealand doesn't refer to itself as a micronation, because it actually does so frequently. This is evidenced by several quotes from the official Sealand news blog cited directly preceding the statement in question. There are actually quite a number of other instances of this usage on the same official blog. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have said many times before - Sealand News is not controlled by Sealand or Roy Bates, and neither hold Sealand News' copyright. It became official, but in the past it was unofficial. The government considers itself a microstate, so it refers to itself as a microstate. I don't know why Sealand News is calling Sealand a micronation if it's official, it shouldn't be - but whatever the reason the government website will have the correct information if not Sealand News and Sealand definitely considers itself a microstate. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that we're making some progress and getting some agreement. However, Gene you rolled back to an earlier version of the opening paragraph thereby undoing other changes, so I've reverted back again. This is not meant to prevent you restoring the wird "micronation" to the lead, rather that it's incumbent on you to not wipe out good changes if you think one little thing is bad. Given that there seems to be some controversy about the word you might want to qualify or at least cite it, but we can look at that when you've made your edit. Cheers. --kingboyk 13:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC) PS I'm not sure what edit the OP is talking about; I'll look now as I may be able to restore what he wrote if it's a good compromise; currently we have my last edit as the lead.

I've had a go at this myself. version 1. version 2. roll back the lead to here if dislike, compromise version whilst discussing. --kingboyk 13:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the first sentence should say that Sealand is simply a micronation, this dosen't completely define Sealand. Also, Sealand's sovereignty is not only supported by Roy Bates or his family, but by others (the legal opinions for example, and support for Sealandic sovereignty does exist on the internet and elsewhere). I think the article should be similar to Empire of Atlantium when stating if Sealand is a micronation. See the first paragraph on that article. Atlantium considers itself to be a nation and so does Sealand. Atlantium is considered by some to be a micronation, and so is Sealand. The Empire of Atlantium article seems to be the best guideline for the Sealand article. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Your version. My copyediting of your version. I don't like it, sorry to say - looks like weasel words to me. My preference is my "version 1" attempt, or the version which doesn't mention micronation at all. Let's wait for some other people to look at the various revisions (we can but hope) or make their own changes... --kingboyk 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I have changed the first paragraph so that it is a more accurate definition of Sealand. Sealand does refer to itself as a microstate, but external observers have referred to it as a micronation. Also it is not Roy Bates that claims Sealandic territory, but Sealand. Sealand refers to the Sealanders and the Principality they created.

The first paragraph is similar to the Empire of Atlantium's first paragraph. It shows where it is located and that it considers itself a microstate, but external observers have reffered to it as a micronation. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that the BBC article widely used here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6239967.stm) calls it a "quasi-country". What do you think of that? --kingboyk 15:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Your edits and use of BBC term "quasi-country". Again, I don't like this. It seems forced and laboured and it's as though you/we are trying to push a certain point. Also, how many of the newspapers etc call Sealand a micronation? Most? Some? Hardly any? My money is on the last option. --kingboyk 15:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a better first paragraph, calling Sealand a quasi-country, with reasons for and against later in the paragrpah, is a better definition - and the BBC is a reliable source. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Should Sealand have a definition in the first sentence? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. What do you have in mind?? --kingboyk 16:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the definition of Sealand as a quasi-country should stay - it is more NPOV than micronation or microstate. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The accepted English language term that's applied to unrecognised statelike entities is "micronation". Sealand is both unrecognised and statelike, ergo, it's a micronation. "Quasi-country" is simply a word coined by one journalist. It appears to be a synonym for "micronation".

The vast majority of third party sources either explicitly identify Sealand as a micronation, or else leave the reader in no doubt that it is indeed an unrecognised statelike entity. Sealand also use the term "micronation" as a self-descriptive on their own official news site, and in recent years representatives from Sealand have attended micronation conferences in Finland and the UK. Furthermore Sealand has willingly contributed material to major public exhibitions on the subject of micronations held in the the UK and France during the past three years, participated in Danny Wallace's micronation series on the BBC and assisted the authors of the Lonely Planet micronation guide.

By comparison, Sealand has never been involved in any conference, public exhibition, television series, radio show, printed publication or anything else involving the terms "microstate", "quasi-country", "pseudo-nation" or any other variant if these terms.

There is nothing POV about this article accurately reflecting the overwhelming body of opinion on the subject. The continued attempts to claim that Sealand is something other than what it is generally agreed to be by the vast majority of those who have written about it are really rather pointless. NPOV, as I have pointed out numerous times, has got nothing to do with giving equal weight to every theory that exists on a subject. We do not give equal weight to the flat earth theory vs the round earth theory and call it NPOV. The exact same principle applies here. These are very simple concepts. We've had this dicussion repeatedly before. Why are we still having it? --Gene_poole 16:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sealand has participated in micronation conferences, but if you read their website, they said that they have participated in two international exhibitions featuring not only artistic projects termed micronations but also the reality of their microstate. They have participated as part of their international cultural activities.

And Sealand News (and I have said this many times now) does not state correctly what Sealand considers itself. They are not controlled by Sealand, they became official, they were once unofficial. Sealand states on their website that they are a microstate as one of their official notices. Important announcements from a government of any nation are found on official notices, not independent newspapers. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Then write a suitable introduction and provide citations. From what I've read, most sources describe it as a self-declared state which isn't. I've tried to come up with a lead which reflects this but it's not easy! --kingboyk 16:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be the version I wrote last week which stated "Sealand is a micronation" and supported the statement with 4 citations - two from major media organisations and two from Sealand's own official news site. After numerous reversions, my cites have been deleted and replaced with the "quasi-state" weasel word with which the article has been lumbered in a bend-over-backwards attempt to promote the notion that, somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, Sealand isn't actually a micronation. --Gene_poole 17:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Of the 4 sources provided: 1 is Lonely Planet. One, BBC radio website (not BBC News), isn't valid because it's source is also Lonely Planet. Two are published by Sealand News - is this is a reliable source? I don't think so.

I've just done a google search for sealand+micronation and I'm sure you can do a lot better than that...Anyway, later I'll try and get micronation into the lead proper, but please come up with some better sources than this. Only 1 of the 4 is anything like acceptable, and even the Lonely Planet book is a bit dodgy because it's clearly intended to be comedy. --kingboyk 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This constant attempt to change back to the now much older edit of "The Principality of Sealand is a micronation" is a step backward not forward. What we are trying to do is create a NPOV article. We are no longer using the micronation/microstate status section. This is the better solution to the problem. The BBC seems to think Sealand is a quasi-country, and calling Sealand a micronation is not a 100% accurate definition of Sealand. And I am not going to repeat what has already been said about Sealand News. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If micronation can be in the first sentence, then so should the other definitions of Sealand. Quasi-country is the best definition. I'm not saying remove the word micronation completely from the first paragraph, just don't place it in the first sentence. I will place micronation in the same sentence with sovereign state. This is similar to Empire of Atlanitum.

One reference for micronation, one reference for sovereign state and one reference for quasi-country. Quasi-country is the most neutral of the definitions - not completely a country, but not completely a micronation - so quasi-country can go in the first sentence. The others can go later in the paragraph, as neither of these define Sealand 100%, and quasi-country is the most accurate of the three. The first sentence should be an accurate definition of Sealand, sovereign nation and micronation are just not accurate enough for this. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really only interested in what the published sources say. I think the article also makes it quite clear (especially after my copyediting) what Sealand's status is... My advice would be to look for more material from reliable sources and the lead can then write itself. The lead is meant to be merely a summary of the main article, after all. --kingboyk 13:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This source calls Sealand a country and ys that it has sovereignty:

[2]

It says that its nation status is disputed, I will try and rewrite the paragraph. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to me to be going around in circles, and in my view we are in danger of losing a sense of perspective in arguments over incidental minutiae.

When citing sources it is important that the source accurately reflects the original author's intent - not some highly selective or unconventonal reinterpretation of it that can then be used to promote a non-mainstream POV.

As I've already pointed out, a simple Google search for "sealand+micronation" returns many hundreds of thousands of results. By comparison, a search on "sealand+quasi-state" or any other "sealand+?" query permutation, proportionally returns close to zero results - for the simple reason that these terms do not reflect the current overwhelming weight of opinion on the subject.

It is extremely inappropriate for this article's opening paragraph to promote the only known source which has ever referred to Sealand as a "quasi-state" in a manner that suggests that this reflects a definitive and prevalent body of opinion - when in fact it is a one-off journalistic invention that in no way reflects what the overwhelming weight of opinion on the subject actually is.

It is crystal clear on reading any of the media articles and other reportage that exist about Sealand, that its generically viewed with wry amusement as the quirky manifestation of one eccentric English family's talent for theatrical self-promotion. Suggestions that there's a significant body of mainstream opinion that accepts that Sealand is something other than a micronation - and that as a consequence this article should give those opinions equal weight - are so comprehensively ridiculous as to defy belief.

As far as sources go, the Lonely Planet micronations guide may maintain a light tone - but dismissing it as a source on that basis is wrong. In fact it is the first authoritative source to appear on the subject in several decades.

Finally, it is perfectly acceptable to cite relevant primary sources alongside third party sources in order to demonstrate that a consensus of opinion exists between the article subject itself and multiple external commentators on that subject. --Gene_poole 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I pretty much agree with you. Certainly agree that "This discussion seems to me to be going around in circles" and that Sealand is "generically viewed with wry amusement as the quirky manifestation of one eccentric English family's talent for theatrical self-promotion". Something like this last statement really ought to be in the lead. There's also stacks of great sources available online which aren't being used....

Perhaps you'd have another go at writing the lead based on what the bulk of the sources say; again, as you rightly point out, that's all we should be interested in. I know you'll be tempted to just roll back but really I think we can do better than any lead we've had so far, all of which have been either dull or opinionated imho. --kingboyk 14:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, saying that this is a quirky manifestation of an eccentric family for theatrical self promotion is just all opinion - it can't go in the article. Quirky, eccentric and theatrical are all just opinions - noone can base facts on these. Sealand is unique, but isn't the Sovereign Military Order of Malta or the Empire of Atlantium unique? No Wikipedia article states that either of these are quirky manifestations of eccentric people for self-promotion. Many sources state that the Empire of Atlantium is a micronation, but that does not completely define the Empire - even if micronation was the only definition for the Empire, compared to many other micronations it is more serious. Like Sealand, it is in Lonely Planet's guide to Micronations, so Sealand, with many laws and sources - even if they call it a micronation - supporting its sovereignty, should not just be simply defined as a micronation.

And Google does not have all the sources for information on Sealand. Books and documents are also sources. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I really do think you need to revist WP's content policies. All POVs are not equally valid, all sources are not equally authoritative and - as I have pointed out to you quite a number of times now - WP:NPOV does not mean giving equal weight to all POVs.

The overwhelming weight of published sources do not consider Sealand to be a sovereign state or a microstate. That is not merely an opinion. It is a verifiable fact, supported by multiple citable sources.

The overwhelming weight of published sources do either explicitly consider Sealand to be a micronation, or else describe it in ways that leave no doubt that it is viewed as a entity that is of like type with other micronations. That is not merely an opinion. It is a verifiable fact, supported by multiple citable sources.

The overwhelming weight of published sources do view Sealand as quirky and eccentric. That is not merely an opinion. It It is a verifiable fact, supported by multiple citable sources.

In each case above, the alternative proposition is supported either by a ridiculously miniscule number of citable sources - or else no sources at all. It is therefore entirely accurate to describe them as constituting an unsubstantiated fringe POV.

The WP article on Sealand must proportionally reflect the overwhelming weight of opinion on the subject, as described above. It must not give unsourced or poorly sourced fringe theories or speculations equal weight to what the overwhelming current consensus POV on the subject is.

The suggestion that there is any similarity whatsoever between Sealand - a decrepit gun platform occupied for 40 years by one English family, and lately used as the site of a web-hosting business - and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta - a 900 year-old religious order with formal diplomatic relations with nearly 100 countries, and which owns and manages a global network of hospitals and humanitarian services - is not only ludicrous - it's downright offensive.

WP exists to document reality as it is - not promote reality as individuals with vested interests would like it to be.--Gene_poole 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say that Sealand was similar to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. However they are both very different from the usual nation. The SMOM has no territory, so it's unique. Sealand is on a former sea fort, so it's unique. Quirky and eccentric may be what the sources state, but they are opinions. A source, for example, could state that there is a continent called Antarctica. The same source could also state an opinion on Antarctica. However the Antarctica article would not use that opinion as a definition, it would simply state that Antarctica is a continent. If 100 sources, or 1000 sources stated the same opinion about Antarctica, the article would still not state the opinion - that would be against NPOV.

Viewing Sealand as quirky and eccentric is not fact. It is not a concept whose truth can be proven (a fact), it is a judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty (an opinion). These are opinions.

Why should Sealand be defined as a micronation while the Empire of Atlantium isn't completely defined as one? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP articles must proportionally reflect what the overwhelming weight of available, reliable, third party sources say. In this case, there are hundreds of thousands of them, and they say Sealand is a micronation run by an eccentric family. A miniscule number - less than 10 - other sources, many of which are of dubious veracity - apparently say something diferent. We can mention both, but absolutely cannot give equal weight to both. That's all there is to it. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And where would "eccentric" or other opinions be placed in this article without being against NPOV? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Everywhere. Obviously. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere, and here are some reasons:

If there are several sources about Sealand, and not sources that copy each other (there are plenty of those - especially in news sources), that all state a specific word such as eccentric then place them here.

Even if there were many sources, how would you place these opinions so that they benefited the article in NPOV? Why would anyone who reads this article need to know about whether the family is eccentric or not? All they need to know is that there was a British family who from 1967 onwards controlled the fort and that Sealand was founded.

And Sealand is not decrepit, in fact it is being improved with renovations by Church and East. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Change of title

It was suggested earlier that the title should be changed. Here is my suggestion :Sealand (HM Fort Roughs) - it is NPOV and no article about a nation includes the full title of that nation. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Then call it Sealand! Your suggestion is wordy and a kludge. Personally I would begrudgingly leave it here; if we accept that there is a naming convention for micronation articles (there seems to be) and that it has scope over this article (I do) then that's good enough for me. Sealand sounds less pretentious and is shorter, and would be my personal preference. --kingboyk 16:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify this please. I'm arguing to leave it at "Principality of Sealand" because that's the current convention. I'm not sure I agree with the convention and personally prefer "Sealand", but that's a debate for another day and not a debate I wish to ignite. --kingboyk 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, the naming convention is to use the full title of the micronation as the article name. This ensures they are sufficiently differentiated from articles about sovereign states. I see no reason why Sealand should be an exception to this convention, particularly given that it's the world's best known micronation. --Gene_poole 16:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a clear pattern indicating that there is a naming convention. I would support "Sealand". --Kevin Murray 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at the articles in the micronations category. By my count, over thirty have names that comply with Gene's "convention." Excluding ones to which the convention clearly would not apply (names of individuals, etc.), there are four that are primarily about a geographical entity on which a micronation is based (or a book, in the case of Weslandia), and only secondarily about the micronation itself. There are at least five articles primarily about a micronation where the article title is a shorter form than what the micronation identifies itself as (Frestonia, Kugelmugel, Neue Slowenische Kunst, Talossa, and Yamassee). Four more have a "short form" name, but it appears that a "long form" name may not exist (Ladonia, Lovely, Nova Roma, Valtio). So it looks like Gene's "naming convention" is followed by somewhere between 75 and 90 percent of the articles devoted to specific micronations. This article was just moved to its current location, by consensus, a few months ago. I still think the current title is best. PubliusFL 19:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This convention is not official Wikipedia policy - this article's title can be changed. I also agree that Sealand is a better title. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

An article title should only be changed with good reason. There is no good reason to change this one, and many good reasons to keep it as it is. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No good reason? The title of the article Germany does not state Federal Republic of Germany, and the title of the article Monaco does not state Principality of Monaco - so the title of the article Sealand should not state Principality of Sealand. I still think the article should be renamed Sealand. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Germany and Monaco are sovereign states. Sealand is a micronation. Different WP article naming conventions apply to sovereign states and micronations. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That may be the convention, but it violates NPOV. By following what the entities want to be called that is essentially promoting their POV. The micronation infobox is rife with similar problems of supporting the entities' POV by trying hard to make them look official. "Principality of Sealand" is a name specifically chosen to sound official and has the result of skewing the perception of the entity. - Taxman ^Talk 15:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Kind of. If "NPOV" is the issue then the articles should be named according to how the majority of sources refer to the entity. If there aren't enough sources to be sure then the article probably shouldn't be here in the first place. In the case of Sealand, there's no shortage of sources and I'd wager they call mostly call it "Sealand". What most sources call the "Empire of Atlantium" I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if they use the full title.

Now, where this becomes problematic is that a naming convention of "what the sources say" doesn't provide particularly firm guidance to editors. These things are best kept simple I think (but, note, I am "thinking aloud" here).

Full title: it's what the entity calls itself; these entities are shall we say "artistic creations" and how they refer to themselves is not irrelevant. Shortened title as used by sources: Is generally how we do things here. Not enough sources to say: See above.

Anyway... I was loathe to call for it, but it might be that the naming convention has to be debated for all of these articles as changing one not the others isn't particularly helpful.

Personally I find "Principality of"... to be aggrandising and pretentious. I prefer "Sealand" but I can accept the longer title as that's currently the convention and the name the entity chooses to use. --kingboyk (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC) PS I agree with you about the infobox. Why does it need such fields as "GDP" and "Ethnic groups"? I might take a look at a random sample of articles and see how many actually have anything sensible in those and similar fields.

If I recall correctly the convention for naming micronation articles evolved because third party sources will typically use a micronation's full self-assumed nomenclature when referring to it. I don't think this is problemmatic in any way. As far as the infobox goes, the one in this article seems to be a newly-evolved version, which differs significantly from the more widely-used one (see Independent State of Rainbow Creek for example); it does seem to contain a number of fields (GDP, currency symbol, ethnicity) whose only purpose seems to be to further muddy the waters on the question of whether Sealand is a micronation or not. They should definitely be done away with. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The improvement of this infobox should not just be based on whether Sealand is a micronation or not. I think the infobox can be improved in many ways. Sealand has a claimed GDP, I don't see why it should be removed from the infobox if other nations use it in their infobox. Some people would disagree, saying that Sealand is a micronation, but if you do consider Sealand to be that, then why should that status limit the information in the infobox? There is no reason. It has a claimed GDP, the claimed GDP field is to inform readers of this article that Sealand has a claimed GDP and nothing else - not even its status.

The convention is not official - and it seems unnecessary to call Sealand by its longer name, and sources seem to call it Sealand more often than Principality of Sealand. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The naming convention on this subject has evolved via a consensus process over a period of nearly half a decade, so it's about as "official" as it's possible for anything on WP to be, short of being annointed as a formal editing policy. It's very unlikely to be changed because one editor with an apparent vested interest doesn't like the way it affects one article. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long this convention has been planned and accepted. You say that it is unlikely to change - but that's speculation, if its better to call this article Sealand, then it is possible.

One editor? You might want to reread the above, I count about three. How it affects one article? If there are other articles in a similar situation to Sealand then the title should be changed to the shorter name - that includes most micronation articles.

I generally don't like the convention and how it affects articles (not just Sealand, any article) - I don't see why longer titles are necessary.

You don't consider Sealand a nation, but that does not mean that when someone opposes the convention that the oppositions (plural) can be ignored.

So everything that you have said about the opposition to the convention is incorrect/speculation. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll need a lot more than 1 opinion to change a consensus that's been supported by literally dozens of editors across dozens of articles. Good luck. Can I also suggest you stop disparaging other people's comments by referring to them as "speculations" whenever they happen to disagree with your POV. It's really not a good look, and won't gain you any friends. The only thing that matters here is what the reliable third party sources on the subject say, and that has already been very, very clearly established. You may elect to dislike WP policy all you wish, but the article content is not going to change as a consequence. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you repeat what I said about me disliking WP policy? Because I don't remember that. I don't dislike WP policy and if you mean the convention (which isn't official) then I can disagree with it - you may not like that, but I can disagree with it just as you can agree with it.

One opinion? The convention is also based on one opinion (Sealand is a micronation) - so that means two opinions - at least the only two opinions of Sealand that have been considered on Wikipedia so far and the only two opinions I can think of.

And I don't refer to the opinion that disagrees with Sealand being a nation as speculation - in fact there are sources to show that the opinion does exist. What I mean is the assumptions, like the one you wrote about the article will never change as a consequence, or that the vast majority of sources consider Sealand a micronation. Can you prove any of this? Can you prove that in the future the article will never change because of this opinion? You can't, in fact what you have said is wrong, it already has changed.

This article will not be owned by people who consider Sealand a micronation - and I can completely disagree with that opinion if I want.

I find it unusual that even though you consider sources highly important, you always seem to ignore (not even consider) the sources supporting Sealandic sovereignty and that when a solution with both POVs is found, you always completely disagree with it (Sealand is a nation, but I don't mind the solutions with both POVs) - though Atlantium seems to have no problem with this...

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are now begining to veer well and truly into trolling territory. I strongly urge you to stop wasting your efforts on unproductive and disruptive contributions of that nature, and refocus your attentions on improving the content of the article by providing reliable third party references that support your position. So far you have not done so, despite writing tens of thousands of words on the subject on this talk page. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not trolling. And I have placed sources supporting Sealandic sovereignty. Disagreeing is not trolling - but if it constantly judges my or other users' contributions as you have done in the past few comments, then it is trolling. Why if you have all these sources supporting your POV as well as sources supporting the other POV do you continue to argue that Sealand is 100% a micronation whilst removing the other edits or solutions that have been created? So far editors have attempted to resolve this problem by including both POVs - and that is the best solution (and you consider my contributions trolling?). If it works for Atlantium, I think it will work for Sealand.

You can consider Sealand a micronation and contribute using that POV with sources, but that does not mean that you can judge the other POV and its contributions.

I am not attempting to change the article so that it says "Sealand is a sovereign nation" - but I don't agree with "Sealand is a micronation" and there are sources showing this.

So why does Atlantium use this solution (and it works) but Sealand doesn't? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this solution has already been used in Sealand's first paragraph for a few days now and it has not been changed - so it works and it still refers to Sealand with both POVs. If it stays like this then the problem should be solved in the first paragraph. It also clearly defines Sealand and is less vague than just "Sealand is a micronation". Should this be the solution to the problem? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well - I'm not sure about whether Gene_poole agrees but I'm going to assume that this dispute has finished and that the solution works. I tried to solve the dispute on his user page but what I wrote was constantly being deleted for what he calls trolling - and the only response I got was a completely pointless response that was irrelevant on the Legal status of Sealand page.

Other than that I have improved the infobox and helped rewrite and improve some of the sections. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Convention

Support or oppose the "convention".

Oppose - The convention is an attempt to seperate the "micronations" from the "sovereign states", but this does not work because how can Sealand or Atlantium for example be seperated when there is no NPOV certainty that either of these can be defined as micronation or sovereign state. the title of the Germany article remains Germany even though there is a longer version of it and though the government of Germany refers to itself by the longer version, Germany is often referred to as simply Germany. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Convention is now part of Wikiproject Micronations. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Something you could do to push this article towards FA

It seems to me that all the Sealand related articles were written by aficionados (nothing wrong that with if they tried to be neutral and use great sources but alas they didn't). It was trying too hard to make a point (we've fixed a lot of that in this article) and relies way too much on primary and obscure sources.

Now, here's something that could be done to instantly move the article up a notch: open up every article cited here from a reputable source such as The BBC or a national newspaper. Also do a Google/Google News search and look for reports from respected institutions. Then, work in commentary and facts from these articles. The reliable sources will soon outnumber the dodgy sources, and the independent material will soon outweigh the opinion... --kingboyk 16:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sealand+micronation&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3GGGL_enGB251&start=10&sa=N

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22726244-5002031,00.html from The Australian, by the Lonely Planet author but this time he actually visited Fort Roughs... --kingboyk 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My copyedit is complete. I suggest you look at moving Sealand info from HM Fort Roughs into this article, and Radio Essex info from there into a new article, as the article on the fort probably has more to say about Sealand history and legal status than this article does! (a quirk of history as the fort article started off as something else entirely and got renamed). See #Sealand-related articles. --kingboyk 21:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Arguably best known micronation"

And very arguably not. Better known than the Vatican or Monaco? Give us a break. Better source needed. Itsmejudith 21:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind striking the sentence unless it can be sourced and unweaseled (actually, I would prefer it), but your proposed counterexamples are completely off the mark. The Vatican and Monaco are certainly not micronations, and calling them micronations would probably be quite offending. They are microstates though. -- Jao 22:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I provided one (good, reliable) source and added a fact tag to invite more. I'm not sure it's possible to state definitively which is the best known, hence "weasel words" are probably unavoidable here. I have no objections to striking the sentence altogether if folks think that correct, but is it not true and verifiable that it's oft reported as being the best known or most infamous? Agree with Jao's analysis also. --kingboyk 14:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so WP makes a distinction - but how clued up is the general public on this distinction? Hardly anyone has heard of Sealand. I didn't remember it, and I watched the "How To Start Your Own Country" programmes on the BBC. Make sure you don't blow this phenomenon up into something that it isn't. Itsmejudith 14:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but if you see above you'll see that we've had difficulty writing a suitable lead. Any input or suggestions would be most welcome. --kingboyk 15:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Micronation/Microstate

The infobox is completely and clearly supporting the micronation status POV. If there is information to be added about the flag or coat of arms in the future, and if there is enough infromation for an article to be created, then creating a link in the infobox can be difficult. The POV is also supported with the words membership, purported orginisational structure and purported currency. The micronation infobox is not as useful as the infobox for the United Kingdom for example is much more useful. I think that this userbox should be used for micronations, sovereign nations and unrecognised nations. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Let's be clear. You think Sealand is a real country right? It isn't. The vast majority of sources say it isn't. Just because they won a court case in a local court some decades ago doesn't mean that the British government couldn't/wouldn't take over the fort at the smallest whiff of trouble. They could and they would. (See for example the Anglo-Dutch raid on Radio Caroline in international waters!)

The only "POV" comes from people who wish to distort Sealand's status upwards, to make it seem more credible or important than it is and to go on at great length about insignificant legal issues.

Sealand is not a country, it is not recognised as a country by any other country; it's a bit of eccentric English fun. If you're not able to see that then maybe you shouldn't be editing the article. --kingboyk (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That was just speculation:

Vast majority of sources? That might be true - but not as vast as many people believe. Remove all the unreliable sources and the copied sources (especially news sources which copy information off other news sources), the sources that don't base their views on fact and law. All those sources distort Sealand's status downwards. And how can you be sure - 100% certain - that this reduced amount of sources is still a majority if not a vast majority? It might be - there might even be a high likelihood - but speculation can't be placed on Wikipedia.

The British government could attack Sealand, but saying that it would is speculation.

To base Sealand's history on one court case that they won does not 100% recount Sealand's history. Insignificant legal issues? That's just opinion. Stating that Sealand is not a country is a POV, and that can be partially included into the article if it has sources - which it does, but so does the other POV.

It isn't recognised - so are other self-proclaimed states.

Eccentric English fun? Firstly - not just English - North American, Spanish, Dutch, German and more - as well as the rest of the UK. Eccentric? Another opinion, but this opinion won't be included into Wikipedia because it is not NPOV.

And finally, whether someone considers Sealand a country or not should not affect this article because it is supposed to be NPOV. Noone controls this article - not the people who consider Sealand a micronation, and not the people who consider Sealand a sovereign nation. Calling Sealand a micronation on a NPOV article does not define Sealand 100% and there are sources for that just as there are sources supporting Sealandic micronation status. If you consider Sealand a micronation then combine it with other POVs, but that POV should not replace all other POVs - and that applies to any article. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No friend you are wrong. The article should be "controlled" by people who are willing to report what the sources say. Show me some reliable sources (not from the Sealand website or "Sealand News") which says it is a sovereign state.

I don't like the word "micronation" either, but that doesn't alter the fact that Sealand claims to be but is almost certainly not a sovereign state; whatever the legitimacy of its claims (some legitimacy back in the 60s given it was outside UK waters and Bates won a court case), it lacks that most essential arrangement: recognition by any other country.

Anyway... you clearly have energy and enthusiasm for this topic, why aren't you spending your time researching and expanding the article instead of arguing over a few words in the lead? --kingboyk (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the few words in the lead were wrong and incorrect and there was disagreement about this when this article was a featured article candidate (however the new lead is a huge improvement). There are sources calling Sealand a nation, here are a few examples:

(Note: Mistakes in above article include calling Sealand a Kingdom and naming the German-Sealander incorrectly)

All of the above don't use the word micronation, and call Sealand a state/country/nation/sovereign nation in many ways.

There are places other then Sealand that are not recognised as nations by other nations, Abkhazia for example. That is the problem - Sealand is unrecognised, yet it has everything else to be a nation. It is expected that Sealand is not currently officially recognised as a nation - the main reasons why nations are recognised are because:

They don't want to start a potentially harmful dispute. (Sealand has never begun a conflict and is not likely to declare war on other nations unless in defense.)
Other nations recognise that nation. (No other nation recognises Sealand currently.)
That nation might be useful for trade. (Though the data haven might be useful in the near future, there are other resources currently more useful to other nations that Sealand doesn't have.)

Sealand is very different from the usual nation and that's another reason why it is not currently being recognised - yet apart from recognition Sealand has everything else. That is why there are these de facto recognitions, yet the nations that de facto recognise them find this hard to accept and realise their mistake. However it becomes increasingly difficult to correct that mistake because Sealand's claim is becoming more and more legitimate with these recognitions and documents. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply. There's a lot to digest there so forgive me if I don't answer right away. --kingboyk (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article quick-fail

I have quick-failed this article as it contains many {{citation needed}} tags. Some of the references are also not reliable. If you feel this review is in error, take it to Good Article reassessement. Cheers, Dav nel 03 14:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Sealand have copyright laws?

If not, then all pictures taken in it are in the public domain, at least in Sealand. If a work is not copyrighted in its country, is it also not copyrighted in the Untied States? SteveSims (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point, but I think we'll assume the laws of the UK apply. --kingboyk (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions

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

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

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

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

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

GDP

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

Sovereignty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This conversation is over.

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

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

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

What Sealand considers itself to be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliability of sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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