Talk:Principality of Sealand/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

prince

I think bates article shud be changed 2 princepaddy roy bates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.13.183 (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not, since his title is self-declared and his "princedom" is recognized by no other nation. --Pstanton (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. As Pstanton implied, the Principality of Sealand is unrecognized by any other nation regardless of its legality; thus as far as this site is concerned, Bates is not a legitimate prince. Sidenote: use proper English. Txtspeak is lazy and immature. DerekMBarnes (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support as if that's his legal Sealandic status, then it should be the page name.

Oppose Absurd, Sealand doesn't have a "Legal status". In reality, Sealand only exists because the U.K. government suffers it to exist. I can declare my dorm room to be the Imperium of Snarky Blahira, but that wouldn't make my styling myself "Imperial Majesty" any less stupid, would it? --Pstanton (talk) 07:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Supplement: In my opinion, the legal status of Sealand is up in the air. It depends on whether Fort Roughs was ever declared sovereign British territory before its occupation by Bates, et al., and I've seen no evidence either way. In light of this, Wikipedia cannot in good conscience "take a side" on the legitimacy of Sealand, and must therefore adhere to as neutral a point of view as possible. Sidenote: what Pstanton says is true. Britain could forcibly reacquire Fort Roughs at anytime, and probably wouldn't lose any political standing in the process. DerekMBarnes (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.118.208.164 (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture

can some1 please feature the sealand after fire picture? thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.13.183 (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

wrong name

the capital of Sealand isn't "Sealand". see here: http://www.sealandnews.com/facts/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123abcdoreme2 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, Sealand doesn't even have a "capitol".... I don't think your source is particularly valid, but I understand how it is somewhat absurd to mention a capitol. It would be like saying the capitol of Vatican City is Vatican City: ridiculously redundant. --Pstanton (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The capital of Vatican City is indeed the capital of Vatican City. Agreed its rather absurb in both examples, but does seem to have some basis in fact. Dman727 (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

surely the capital of Sealand is HM Fort Roughs ? Marlarkey (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed the Pirate Bay reference

Someone had added a unreferenced comment that TPB planned to buy this after their trial; this idea has been floating (!) around since Napster was being forced to shutdown, and always fails to work simply because whatever legal nationality the island has, any isp will be based somewhere with a legal framework, courts, and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.222.100 (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The story of TPB is well known, but a rewording would be great, since it was more than anything else a publicity stunt. --89.152.177.195 (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Location

My chart has roughs tower at 51°53.712N 001°28.843E —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.111.12 (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Constitution

Hello,

The s:Constitution of the Principality of Sealand hosted at Wikisource doesn't have a source, not a license. Further an anonymous editor questions its authenticity: s:Talk:Constitution of the Principality of Sealand. Therefore the article is proposed for deletion. See s:Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Constitution_of_the_Principality_of_Sealand. Any comments welcome. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What is happening?

Is there any way to find out what is happening with Sealand? Is it sold or not? And what about this "Kingdom of Marduk"? Who is King Marduk? Is he Johannes Seiger? Is the platform an online casino or not? What is the latest official word from the "Royal Family"? Xavius, the Satyr Lord (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources

I deleted the part :

<External commentators generally classify Sealand as a micronation It has been described as the world's best-known micronation.>

since those "external commentators" where firstly <sealandnews.com> itself and secondly a book titled "Micronations" by John Ryan, who himself in his description of the book states:

"Micronations takes a curious look at some of the most curious places on the planet. Designed to generate interest in the strange world out there, this is a fully illustrated, humourous mock guidebook to the nations people create in their own backyards. (...) For lovers of humour, trivia and ephemera, this is a gift book, a reference text and a travel guide rolled into one." (source: amazon)

And looking at the other source for Sealand being "the world's best-known micronation"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22726244-5002031,00.html

I have pains finding the part where it actually states that.

Nonetheless it is still a pleasure to watch a self-proclaimed "micronation" setting up their own propaganda ministry to spread their own version of the truth around. Please don't quote the "official" "government" press office next time you want to verify a claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.61.78 (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Moved to right place (on bottom)
• refs to sealandnews.com deleted
• refs to book restored --Yopie 12:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Put something on tourism?

Should we put something about its tourism business? This and a few references in the article seem to suggest so. (That it has a tourism business, I mean.)

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c) 04:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

External commentators - dubious

currently the article states "External commentators generally classify Sealand as a micronation". I doubt that the sources says that, so can we please have a quote from the book on the talk page which backs up the statement. --PBS (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

HavenCo

That part of the article mentions a 1990-1991 court case but no mention of this case is made. --89.152.177.195 (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Murder?

Quite a fascinating article, but one question. What would happen if someone were murdered on that sea platform? The article spekas that a previous case was thrown out of court for firing a weapon at a ship. But, what would happen if someone actually killed another person? -OberRanks (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the UK has jurisdiction over the waters today, the UK would prosecute you. At the time of the shooting incident, the territorial waters did not extend out to the platform, but it has since been expanded. As far as in international waters, if you murdered someone I think the victim's nation has jurisdiction by practice. Sorry, no free passes. :-P [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Economy

according to the article, sealand's gdp is 600k... but it's not mentioned where do they get this money from. anybody knows?--camr ^nag 13:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sporting Activities

I know Slader Oviatt. What evidence would be required in order to establish that he did in fact carry the flag as stated in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.58.140 (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bring us a news-item from a reliable source (which, for example, excludes "self-published"/click on link for further info). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this link sufficient? Alberta Legislative Assembly This is a transcript from the proceedings of the Alberta Legislature as recorded on the official Hansard transcripts dated Tuesday November 24, 2009, evening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotlaw8 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

This user is a Baron of Sealand

-Imagi-King (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"microstate"

Who added the mention of microstate in the lead? If this is supposed to be a precedent, then we can go ahead and add the line "considered by some to be a microstate" to every such article, since it is true for (almost) every micronation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, how many micronations can claim possible de facto recognition of countries? Outback the koala (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The Principality of Hutt River for example has a letter by the then-governour of Western Australia. The Principality of Seborga claims to be the successor of a state founded in 900-something, and backs it up with historical records. --- Now... "in principle," I am not opposed to this sort of addition, but I do believe there needs to be a wider consensus concerning this. If the community can agree to the addition of "microstate" in this article, I will add the phrase to every such entity (of course, not some kid's bedroom...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The operative words above are of course "possible de facto", which is completely different from "real" recognition. A microstate has a fairly clear definition. So does micronation. We rely on what the preponderance of reliable sources say here, and I am unaware of anyone who has officially said it is a recognized microstate. But I have myself rarely if ever seen real recognition of Sealand mentioned in reliable sources, and as such I have to say that it would probably violate both POV and OR to say it is such.

I note the material in the lead calling it a microstate has recently been removed by another editor. I commend that removal because "considered by some" is an obvious violation of WP:WEASELWORDS. And, for it to be significant enough to be included in the lead, I would think that there would have to be some kind of real recognition by outside entities, and, as someone who has been in these discussions before, I have to say I really have never seen anything like sufficient to merit changing the content of this article. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Titles

I think that the fact that you can buy a noble title from sealand should be mentioned somewhere on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.224.63 (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC) - Added. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.190.204 (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The article reads...

"However, like other purchased titles, Sealand noble titles are not recognized under international law, and cannot be used on any legal or official forms or documents in any country."

This is not so. My friend, for novelty, has had his credit card, drivers license and health card all bare the title he bought. The rationale with the credit card company when asked was.. "we don't care what you call yourself, you pay your bill, that's all that we care about."

Now, these were not Sealand titles, but equally as novelty, if not more so. So it may have been true at one time, it may still be so in law, but no one actually seems to care in... you know... 2011.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

True enough, it may be that way in some particular country, but in others you can change your name to 'I am a post box put your letters in me' and get that stamped onto your passport. In some countries no name changes are possible for any reason. If the country the original point of view describes could be identified, it could be modified that way, I deleted it for now, as I have no idea which country it's been written for. Penyulap _talk 05:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

'The similarities between the rulers of Sealand and other European monarchs are many, but one feature worth noting is relatively recent opening up of the Sealandic peerage on a commercial basis. Closely modeled on the establishment of the modern English baronetage by King James I in 1611, one may apply for ennoblement in exchange for a contribution to the royal treasury (In King James' case, a Baronetcy put one back an eye-watering £1,095 - a colossal sum by seventeenth century standards. You will find Sealandic prices much more reasonable).'

quote from http://www.marketingchap.com/…/arise-sir-marketing-chap.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.94.31 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Military involvement

"In 1968, the Royal Navy entered what Bates claimed to be his territorial waters in order to service a navigational buoy near the platform,"

I've just been looking into this after reading First Sealand Incident, which presents it even more emphatically - it talks about the Royal Marines, surrender demands, etc. Thing is, I strongly doubt the Navy were ever involved.

The introduction to the court ruling, which is quite clear, says:

The evidence led for the Prosecution, summarized shortly, was to the effect that while Trinity House men were attending to a buoy north west of the artificial erection called Roughs Tower: shots were fired in their direction be the second accused from a .22 pistol belonging to his father, the first accused.

"Trinity House men" are from Trinity House, a civilian authority charged with maintaining lighthouses and other shipping. No troops, no military involvement. Wired pretty much agrees; "workmen who were servicing..." and then they were later arrested on an outstanding warrant.

I've rephrased this accordingly. Shimgray | talk | 10:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also reference to the Royal Marines at HM Fort Roughs Marlarkey (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• These coordinates are wrong, they refer to a point well out in the North Sea, East of Edinburgh. I do not know the correct ones.

212.120.243.145 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• The coordinates appear to be correct. If you open them through GeoHack in WikiMapia, Google Maps, or Acme they open to the right place, but if you open them in Google Earth they come up right if you use the "w/ meta data" link, but not if you click the "open" link, for some reason I don't understand. I don't know if the problem is with Google Earth or GeoHack, but the coords are correct. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have changed the coordinates in the header (only by 160 metres) to match those in HM Fort Roughs article (see HM_Fort_Roughs#Location and Talk:HM_Fort_Roughs#Location for the justification). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enginear (talk • contribs) 22:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Official recognition

Bates claims official de facto recognition for Sealand, but what exactly does that mean and is it legitimate ? The claim is cited here without references. And does the claim stand up anyway ? A court can discuss all sort of things during a case but that does not amount to recoognition - especially when discussing questions of jurisdiction. And a country sending a hostage negotiator to people who have kidnapped and incarcerated their citizens cannot possibly stand up as recognition. What would count is evidence of subsequent relationship between the relevant countries eg Germany or the UK continuing to maintain an intergovernmental relationship with Sealand but there is no evidence of that. So the reference to de facto recognition should be removed. Marlarkey (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does not state that Germany has recognised Sealand. It only states that Sealand itself claims de facto recognition by Germany. Mk5384 (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mk, Sealand only claims it, this does not make it fact. Irregardless, de facto recognition is a very fickle and fliud definition to say the least; but a de facto recognition does not have to be over time, and can during a specific moment in time or during a certain period. A good example might be Somaliland, no country recognises it internationally, but other governments dialogue with it and some even maintain embassies and consulates there (like Ethiopia for instance). A negotiations, seen by Sealand as being a state to state discussion, would be de facto recognition, irregardless of what Germany thinks. Compare it to a negotiation between Cyprus and N. Cyprus, where neither officially recognise each other, but will sit in the same room and talk state to state (while both deny the other is a state). Outback the koala (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care either way about recognition... But the recognition link is to a wikipedia article that does not mention Sealand, whether recognized or not. One or the other should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.45.170 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability tag

I suggest it be removed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

An anon user just removed it, and I can't say I disagree. There appears to be plenty of reliably sourced material on this subject. — Satori Son 17:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The forcibly taken over...

...section has been removed again and needs to be reliably sourced. N.b. a website written by those involved with Sealand is not reliable. raseaC^{talk to me} 11:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You might have noticed that this was partially sourced fro a book. I'll do a partial revert. (I agree the infobox is junk, esp. with the flags...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is that the bulk of the sources are from Sealand-affiliated websites. I'm not sure they constitute reliable sources. raseaC^{talk to me} 12:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends on how they're cited; it can be done. I'm sort of tired right now, but I'll do more on this over the next days. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like somebody keeps restoring the section. We need to go by WP:RS. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm the 'somebody' who keeps restoring it. Reason being i don't like it when people gratuitously remove information be cause the section 'could be shorter'. Wiki should be as informative as possible and if that means making the section a little longer than it HAS to be, i don't see why not? Bully25 (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Reason being WP:RS as mentioned above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Content removal

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Sealand&diff=prev&oldid=367453565 removed some of the claims made for this micronation's status. Citations would be needed in order to restore. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Google Maps

Is there a blank spot there on Google Maps? Or is it me looking at the wrong spot? 85.241.1.11 (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably nothing there, no reason for there to be. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would nothing be there? Outback the koala (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Something should be there, namely Principality of Sealand. The coords above don't seem to be the same as in the article. In both cases, all I see is blue. It's like watching golf on TV. It should be big enough for Google Images. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

They're only going to map an area of sea if there's something worth mapping. Evidently, a piece of WW2 rubbish was not considered worth mapping. raseaC^{talk to me} 10:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I did not know that. It seems that my two year search for Gilligan's Island has been in vain. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't give up on Gilligan's Island; that's a worthy cause. raseaC^{talk to me} 11:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sealand so does exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.51.50 (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a short section in HM Fort Roughs#Location (and slightly more in Talk:HM Fort Roughs#Location) noting about "They're only going to map an area of sea if there's something worth mapping" and also noting very minor discrepancies in coordinates.Enginear (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please add at least one web mapping proof of existence. Jidanni (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

[1] this is a photo location marking of The Principality of Sealand 69.15.208.90 (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There is too much spread in the tagged locations of Panoramia and other location tagged photos to consider any picture by itself a reliable source for location data. _{Friecode (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)}

Dangling text references to 1990 court case.

An early revision contained the text "These cases include a firearms incident in 1990, where Prince Roy fired upon the Royal Maritime Auxiliary vessel "Golden Eye". The vessel believed itself to be under attack and radioed the Thames Coastguard, and the vessel retreated." This was at some point deleted but we still have the reference "HavenCo's founder, later quit and claimed that Bates had lied to him by keeping the 1990-1991 court case from him " which now fails to explain *what* 1990 court case is referenced.

Should we resurrect the text regarding the firearms incident, or nuke the reference to the now-deleted text? Valdis (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of editing this article, but the above post by Valdis should be addressed. I was confused by the reference to the court case in one section without actually explaining the court case. Danpenning (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Danpenning, and suggest that the court case be mentioned in the section "Post-1990 History", potentially renaming that section to "History from 1990 Onwards" or similar. The text from early revisions (for instance 343068585 ) includes the incident with a citation, as follows:

• 1990: The Royal Maritime Auxiliary vessel Golden Eye was fired upon from Sealand in defence of their claim to the waters surrounding Roughs Tower to the extent of twelve nautical miles.

  James Cusick (1990-02-24). "The Independent news story on Sealand's defence". The Independent (London). Retrieved 2007-11-09. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Peter Law (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that this entry was remove in 363456113, claiming that the citation wasn't good enough. Peter Law (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

from german wiki: "Vereinigte Staaten [Bearbeiten] 1990 urteilte ein US Administrative Court, es habe weder zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch vorher jemals eine souveräne Nation mit dem Namen Sealand existiert. Bei der Berufung 1991 hielt ein US Federal Court daran fest." 31.63.150.219 (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Taxes

I've read that one of the main reasons these "Micro Nations" are coming into being is that those 'on board' no longer pay taxes to ANY country except themselves. So, how about it Sealanders: What is the tax situation there?

As a Lord of Sealand (see my article at http://voices.yahoo.com/i-am-official-lord-sealand-you-8689209.html), I do not have to pay tax to the principality, although I have voluntarily supported it. However, I have dual citizenship in the United States. As the U. S. is one of the few (and maybe the only) nation in the world that requires its citizens to pay tax no matter where they live.... Alden Loveshade (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So its all just a huge tax avoidance scheme then... Glad that's settled! MrZoolook (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:N

is this relevant? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems obscure, although Sealand itself is rather obscure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like the same guy is socking to get his fancruft stuff into Prussia... that rings a bell. I'll revert again tomorrow if there's no explanation/justification for this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So could I actually call Sealand a country?

69.196.170.43 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it recognized as such by anyone that matters, such as the UN or the EU? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to call it a country, that's free speech. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. If I took ownership of an abandoned oil drilling platform, I could call my little sliver of property a principality, a kingdom, or even a galactic empire if I wanted to. That doesn't mean anyone else is obliged to. But they could. :) I don't see Sealand in List of nations, probably because it's not recognized by any organized body that matters. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

How does this place survive?

I don't recall it being mentioned anywhere in the "economy" section where it gets enough money to sustain itself, or how the people there get enough food. Does a supply ship just pass by there every week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.8.19 (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fresh drinking water, for that matter. Implications are that their money comes from touristy kinds of stuff sold through the internet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This article and the one about Paddy Roy Bates indicate that none of the Bates family actually live there. The senior Bateses live in Spain, the son in England. They've outsourced the on-site management of the place, so they probably just bring food in as needed. The entire thing appears to have been a long-term publicity stunt, although not without some real-life perils. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Blueprints for sealand

The copyright may be expired on this image of the blueprints for sealand and maybe useful for the article.

• http://www.bobleroi.co.uk/ScrapBook/SealandOne/Elevationws.jpg

Good for an external link. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I added it to ext links. If somebody wants to download it to appear in the article, it would be an asset. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How can it have a population of 3, but a GDP of some 25x its GDP per capita? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.83.145 (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Fraudulent website?

These two websites mentioned in external links:

• Official website
• Website of Rebel Sealand Government

directly contradict each other. The first one sells nobility titles, the second one says Sealand does not sell nobility titles. The first one calls the second one a fraud, too. principality-of-sealand.org claims Johannes W. F. Seiger to be the Prime Minister of Sealand. sealandgov.org claims that the Principality of Sealand does not have a prime minister. Here's the full note about it from sealandgov: http://www.sealandgov.org/notices/pn01904.html Does anyone have any ideas how to find out which site is real, and which is the fraud? Apples grow on pines (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

the second one is the one that is also in German; it's therefore the "fake" one. Not a problem, though, it's clearly labeled as the "rebel government." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Going on the accounts of visitors to the platform, as well as news articles, Prince Michael is still in control of Sealand, and it would appear that sealandgov.org is under his control. The second site is apparently owned by the rebel government in exile, and is very much inactive at this time. _{Friecode (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)}

Cite Titles section

Can someone provide an actual law that says you can't use these titles in anything besides a passport? (which has no section for titles anyways)...

I've looked at this whole novelty title thing for years, Credit Card companies don't care. Some places will change the drivers license and some won't. Almost all cable/phone companies will, some without any proof whatsoever.

If it's a law, it's an old one and one that doesn't seem to be that important. Most companies could care less about which title you want to give yourself as long as you pay your bills on time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Principality of Sealand/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 01:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. There are numerous problems, most notably with referencing, and I believe these will take more than the usual hold period to address. Here are some of the major problems that I see:

• Three citation needed tags
• Six dead link tags
• One unreliable source tag
• "Who" tag in the Economy section
• Many refs missing basic information, such as titles, publishers and access dates (for web references).
• A sales site (references 53 through 57) is not a reliable reference and in this case the website doesn't even link to the proper page (perhaps the ad has been pulled?). Also, improper paraphrasing of the source in this section has led to the advertisement-like language of the source to bleed through, leading to a non-encyclopedic tone.
• What makes ref #19 (Bob Le-Roi) a reliable reference?
• In the Economy section, the external link should be turned into a reference, and there should be a summary of the census. Giving the reader a teaser and then directing them offsite for any real information is a no-no.
• Sealand noble titles - Why should the reader be interested in this information? There is no context, no analysis, no anything. At this point it reads like an advertisement.
• For an article of this length, WP:LEAD suggests 3-4 paragraphs of lead.
• A copyedit is needed, but the source issues need to be sorted out first, so I'm not going to go into detail on this item.

From a quick look at the history of the article, it appears that the nominator has never made an edit to this article. I would suggest reading WP:Good article criteria and working on the article with a view towards meeting those criteria. Good luck, and I look forward to seeing the article back at WP:GAN when it is in better shape. Dana boomer (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Courts/legality?

If I commit a criminal offence in/on/toward Sealand, then who arrests me and which court do I go before? --leopheard (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You would create a precedent. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually not necessarily. There have been legal actions taken by Sealand. "The German government sent a diplomat and eventually negotiated the release of the self-claimed prime minister" who had been involved in an attack. Alden Loveshade (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In what way does that constitue legal action ? Marlarkey (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Because someone was being held by the "Sealandish Government" for breaking Sealand criminal law, and the Germans came in to settle the issue. Achowat (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Legislature of Alberta

Reference 61 makes no sense in conjunction with the content. Since the link is no longer active it is not possible to verify any possible reference. 96.52.182.81 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The uk claims a 12 mile territory beyond it's coast

My edit correcting this was reverted with no reason given. I even linked to a Wikipedia page that clearly states the territory claimed by the UK.Donhoraldo (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The UK only extended their claim to 12 miles after Sealand's founding and the subsequent court case; the information is in the "Government and Politics" section. Achowat (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

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

The result of the move request was: no move; move disambiguation to "Sealand" as no primary meaning. DrKiernan (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Principality of Sealand → Sealand – Latter redirects to here and is certainly the more common name--why redirect? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose restore the disambiguation page to "Sealand". Sealand (disambiguation) should be primary. I don't see this (nonexistant?) microstate having any primarity over RAF Sealand, the town Sealand, Flintshire, etc. 70.24.248.7 (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Leave as is. The dogs are sleeping, and that's a good thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This name is more specific. Biglulu (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I have cleaned up Sealand (disambiguation) per MOS:DAB. It is not an endorsement of primacy per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, merely pro forma styling. ENeville (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Sealand is a redirect. Under the assumption the redirect should exist and not go the DAB, WP:COMMONNAME, common sense, and pretty much standard article titling for every country (or would be country in this case) would reason the short name, not the formal name, is where the content should be. I don't see any policy or guide based reason not to do this and two opposes make no policy reason in their !vote. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose and move the dab page to "Sealand" per IP. No clear primary use of the name. PC78 (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is this serious? The logistics of moving the superstructure of SeaLand would be immense, even after one addressed all the issues around soveriegnty related to its location vis-a-vis disputes about which UN standards apply. Would need to see a strong source to believe a suggested move isn't a hoax or pure dribble.Cander0000 (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this serious? The logistics of explaining that the section above does not regard move of the superstructure of SeaLand would be immense, even after one addressed all the issues around this editor's failure to read and comprehend Talk before responding. Would need to see a strong source to believe this editor reply isn't a hoax or pure dribble. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Official recognition: more accurate summary of Regina v. Bates (the case about the Firearms Act)

Near the beginning, the article states that “an English court ruled it did not have jurisdiction over Sealand.” Would it be more accurate to say that “an English court ruled that the English Firearms Act did not apply to Sealand”? I ask after reading the discussion on page 466 and 467 of Grimmelmann's paper in Illinois Law Review. Grimmelmann concludes that “The case does not say that Parliament could not legislate for Sealand; only that it had not done so” and quotes the justice in the case summarizing his holding as follows: “Parliament has no doubt the power to make it an offense for a British subject to have a firearm with intent to endanger life in Istanbul or Buenos Aires, or where have you, but I do not think it has done so.” Ljosa (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't likening Sealand to Turkey and Argentina pretty much discount your comments. I mean, no one would read that ruling and presume Parliament reserved the right to legislate over those areas. All it is saying is that, as a British Subject, Prince Roy is bound by (some) British laws. Achowat (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the court's decision was narrow. It did not consider whether Sealand was a sovereign state or whether the United Kingdom has the jurisdiction to prescribe the legal consequences of actions taken there, merely whether the Firearms Act applied to Sealand. This is important for the article because it makes it clear that Roy Bates's claim that the case constitutes de facto recognition of Sealand by the UK is not valid. Ljosa (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The validity of Sealand's claims is something, frankly, we give undue weight to (specifically to the pro-Sealand side). and I wouldn't be opposed to adding a little sourced scholarly discussion in opposition to Bates' claims. Achowat (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ljosa made a judgement on what it was asked to adjudicate on, namely jurisdiction in relation to the Firearms Act. Incidentally the rights of the UK Parliament cannot be limited, it is sovereign and can decide whatever it is likes. If the UK parliament passed legislation making it explictly clear that its courts had jurisdiction over Sealand or any other territory, or any particular individual or group of people, then it is entirely free to do so - it might have to change a lot of other legislation to make it stick (eg The Human Rights Act) but it is sovereign and free to do so. Marlarkey (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So if Westminster went and passed a law claiming the personal ownership of firearms was illegal in Topeka, Kansas, they'd be "sovereign and free to do so"? Achowat (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Parliament could do that, but would find it difficult to enforce that law. David (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I imagine that would be quite difficult to do; quite difficult indeed. Achowat (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The point still stands that in the British constitution there is no limit to Parliamentary sovereignty. It could pass a law that abolishes the moon. And that would be the law. The fact that it would be an impractical law doesn't matter per se to the constitution. David (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A good example of extra-territorial law is murder: if I murder someone in (say) India and I return to the UK I can be arrested for it and put on trial for murder (in the UK). Piracy is another classic example. David (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What does the new 12 NM waters claim by the UK mean for Sealand?

I feel this is not explained well at all. The explanation that is given is simply that the government extended their claim, but not if they have been silent on the status of Sealand, or if the new law clearly signifies that Sealand is within their jurisdiction, or what. I understand someone would have to set a precedent before anything can be concretely said, but it would be nice to have something at all in the article. --91.65.211.133 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure if you asked Her Majesty's government, they'd say they own Sealand. If you ask His Highness' government (ignore the fact the Prince Roy hasn't appointed a PM) they'd say that their sovereignty was established at the 8 mile rule and the new claim has no effect. That being said, since nothing Verifiable has been said on the subject, there's nothing we can really say, either. Achowat (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I dare say that if the HM-Gov decided they wanted to take Sealand back (it was theirs long before Bates got his grubby paws on it anyway), they would just send a few guys with pitch forks. It's not as if there is anyone there to defend it anymore, they have been repatriated *rolls eyes* to Spain and ESSEX (?). My how the royal family of the great nation *tuts* of Sealand have fallen if they think moving to Essex is a step up! MrZoolook (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Article treats Sealand as a real country

I hate to break it to the RPGers who have written the bulk of this article, but Sealand is not a real principality, country, or nation-state. All this talk of censuses and economy and population (!) is quite frankly absurd and ridiculous to the extreme. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of absurdities, insanities, and tinfoil hat flat-earthers. Please help rewrite this article into some semblance of a balanced, neutral article about an artificial and totally unrecognized "micronation." Laval (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand where you claim a POV to be. This article explains both the claims of the micronation and the verifiable claims of non-recognition. What more would you like us to do to balance this article? Achowat (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the POV issue User:Laval is talking about is primarily the infobox. A casual reader glancing over the flag, coat of arms, motto, currency, GDP figures, etc. etc...well, one could easily get the impression that it's a legit country. The infobox, in this sense, is a classic example of giving WP:Undue weight to a most extreme fringe minority. I thought Laval's post was clear on this and has a good point, imo. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 12:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

So how do you suggestion we address the issue? Obviously the flag, coat of arms, motto, currency and such are all notable and any article about Sealand which failed to present this info wouldn't be a very good article. An infobox is simply the easiest way to present this collection of info. Perhaps there could be some edits made to the template ({{Infobox micronation}}) which make it more obvious that these micronations aren't really functional states?

Also, perhaps if Laval had of WP:AGF and skipped the WP:PA then they would have received a more productive response in the first place. TDL (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Laval could have raised the concern a better way. My concern first of all is the visually prominent way the infobox is displayed. Normally this is a good thing, but in this case it draws the readers attemtion to all those things mentioned above which suggest a real country. Secondly, I don't really agree that things like the GDP of Sealand is appropriate. How was it calculated and does it really make sense to call it that? As for a solution, yes you may be onto something as far modifying the micronation infobox. Can that be done easily? I don't know. I would like to make it smaller maybe and like you said, have a more obvious distinction from recognized states. The term micronation itself is also misleading. Sounds like it's just a small country. Could the infobox contain the words "unrecognized entity" like in the lead? Just thinking out loud. I really don't have a single good solution that everyone would agree to. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 18:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I've got a pretty good grasp on the wiki-template coding, so if there's a consensus to change it I should be able to get it working. An easy first step would be to improve on the "micronation" label directly below the state name with something more transparent to the reader who's potentially unaware of the meaning of the term micronation (which confusingly is different than microstate). How about "Unrecognized micronation"? Entity just seems too vague to me. We could also increase the size of this text. TDL (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. If we change it to "Unrecognized micronation" and increase the size of the text that would be a step in the right direction. Can we then decrease the overall size of the infobox a little? If so, I would be satisfied with that for now. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there any recognized micronations? If readers look passed a blue link to a word they don't know and don't bother to follow the web, it's not really our fault. Achowat (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Point taken and highlights the underlying issue of the terminology. Micronation and Microstate are antonyms in this sense? It's not our fault, but that doesn't mean it's not potentially confusing and we should do nothing about it. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

But we're not doing nothing about it. We're providing the link. We're giving them access to more information about Micronations than they probably could ever want. Achowat (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "Unrecognized micronation" is redundant, but for the sake of clarity and to help address the concerns raised above I don't see the harm in adding it. TDL (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to stand in the way of consensus. If it'll help, it'll help. Achowat (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

"illegal passports"?

what is meant by this phrase? fraudulent? illegal passports because of what and according to whom? μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

what was meant was "not issued by Sealand". Changed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistent reports

The article says "Bates seized it from a group of pirate radio broadcasters in 1967 with the intention of setting up his own station at the site." However Bates' obituary in The Times says that he moved an existing radio station operation there on Christmas Eve 1966, with no mention of any existing occupants. It says that the following year there was an altercation with "marauders" from Radio Caroline, whom he fought off, but that's not really the story I'm getting from the description "seized it from a group of pirate radio broadcasters", which makes it sound as if they were in occupation and evicted. 86.171.43.215 (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Water depth?

How deep is the water around the tower? --76.105.145.143 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The water surrounding Sealand is about 20 feet deep (6.1m). Maxwell Verbeek herobrinetrollin's talk page 03:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The casino

Does anybody know if they opened the online casino? It is 2013 now. BoredomJS (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sealand should redirect here, with a hatnote pointing to Sealand (disambiguation)

have a look at http://stats.grok.se

Principality of Sealand has roughly 2000 page views per day. the second most viewed article on the Sealand disambiguation page is Sealand national football team at roughly 80 page views per day. RAF Sealand only has about 40 page views per day and Sealand, Flintshire only has about 20. Plus all of the top Google Search results for Sealand are about the Principality of Sealand. It is very obvious that this is the primary topic. The disambiguation page should be at Sealand (disambiguation) and Sealand should redirect here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.197.107 (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I have logged into my account and made the move.M701 (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow

This is a helipad in the middle of the ocean. It is definitely NOT a country. It is however pretty cool though because you can be a Baron. Wallydoggy (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sealandic English

Wouldn't Sealand have its own variant of English, similar to how there's British English and Hong Kong English? 94.197.163.143 (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What on earth is that supposed to be? The idiolect of the late Major Bates or some of his family members? He was from London, so perhaps cockney? As no children ever have grown up on the platform there could not have developped a dialect of its own. --Andhanq (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

All micronations are unregognized!

This article begins: "The Principality of Sealand is an unrecognized micronation,..." Is it really necessary to point out that it is unregocnized. In my humble opinion this lies in the very concept of a micronation. Not a single one of the world's micronations has ever been regocnized by any of the "real" states. Perhaps some of them can "regonize" or exchange "ambassadors" with each other, but that's just part of the game. --Andhanq (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed above in the section 'Article treats Sealand as a real country!' (above). The consensus was that 'unrecognised micronation' is redundant but in this case it's worth reiterating the point because the fact that micronation means unrecognised isn't obvious. Taken at face value it simply means a small nation and that could lead to a lot of readers who don't read the article in enough detail believing Sealand and other micronations have the same status as actual countries. 82.68.159.246 (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

House of Bates and other potential drivel.

I notice this is referenced by and archived copy of the website and a slow newsday piece in a local newspaper. I also see other bits of the article are self referencing. Perhaps if someone is available it might be about time this article was sifted through and the unencyclopaedic self-referenced drivel was lost. --wintonian ^talk 01:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I would like to delete the House of Bates stuff altogether. There are the reference problems mentioned by Wintonian and the matter of "in-universe" content. Regardless, I intend to go deal with the self-referencing links straightaway. Thoughts, anyone? Uberstadt (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Last call for anyone who wants to keep the House of Bates section to step forward. So far, consensus seems to be its removal. If nobody else has anything to say, it's going away within 24 hours. Uberstadt (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The House of Bates issue

Anonymous IP editor User:210.246.41.192 reverted my removal of Principality of Sealand#House of Bates. Their edit summary raised a valid point that is worth discussing to come to an agreement of just how important that section is (although I wish this user had aired their concerns weeks ago when I first inquired on the talk page about its possible deletion). What they said was this: "House of Bates a necessary aspect of understanding Sealand's government and history"

Here are my rebuttals:

1. As I have pointed out before, there is the problem of there being no source for the idea of the Bates family as any kind of formal "House of Bates"; the notion that they are a "self-proclaimed royal house" is accordingly unfounded thus far.

2. Look at the actual content of the section in question. It is a sentence asserting that the House of Bates exists, followed by a family tree. That one sentence is by no means a necessary aspect of understanding Sealand, and I don't really think the family tree is either (unless someone can make a good case for that).

So, anonymous editor and other interested parties, please weigh in. I don't want to make another edit of this sort unless there is actually vocalized consensus about it (rather than implied by silence). Uberstadt (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The sentence and section header should be removed, as the sources provided for the sentence do not support them. The sources do support the family tree. DrKay (talk) 07:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

They do indeed. I wonder about the utility of the family tree, though. Uberstadt (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

More than 24 inline citations

…are from non-independent sources—information from the "government", directly or indirectly. Moreover, these citations vary in format, and appear redundantly in the reflist, making it appear more substantial formally, that it is. Finally, the vast majority of independent sources here are primary sources, leading this to be an article that is poorly sourced with regard to scholarly, independent perspectives. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Constitutional Monarchy?

Without a group of parliament members or government, can it really be considered a constitutional monarchy? Absolute monarchy would be more fitting since Michael Bates is the only ruler (if a giant table randomly sitting in the middle of water can really be considered to have a ruler).Cebr1979 (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added a {{citation needed}} to this hogwashstatement, if the Prince can't afford to publish his constitution online maybe wikisource can offer the web space for a preamble with seven sections. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Language

The language of the Principality of Sealand is English, that can be confirmed. However, after having watched a couple videos, one being Prince Michael being interviewed, I begun to notice pronunciations which Prince Michael used which were a bit unlike Standard English, or the English which his family came from, Essex, I believe. For example, he tends to use the Dutch "de" instead of English "the", (which is the Dutch word for the). He tends to use the Voiceless dental fricative /θ/, in place of a Voiced dental fricative /ð/. The letter d tends to be dropped from the end of words such as the word and.

I've made a brief edit of this trying to link the youtube video; the source; in the References Section however there was a mistake; and I'm not an expert at referencing. Could somebody please fix it and add the link to the references, please? Thank you.

178.78.105.192 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This is original research, so I have removed it. (Hohum ^@) 16:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Should include information on the Sealand College of Heralds

http://www.sealandgov.org/announcements/personalised-coat-of-arms-now-available

Baron Ironside (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Baron Ironside

If it isn't discussed by reliable third-party sources, then it shouldn't be included. DrKay (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, just added this section-

Sealand College of Heraldry

Established 21st October 2014,the Principality of Sealand established the Sealand College of Heraldry to design and register coats of arms. The Prince Regent's coat of arms is the first personal arms to be issued by the Sealand College of Heraldry. Thereafter the heraldry office has offered people the chance to have their own personalised coats of arms tailored specifically for them. The current Principal Heraldic Artist is Leanna McAlpine and Officer of Arms, Anthony Smith. Each coat of arms is registered with the Sealand College of Heraldry and approved by the Director of the Sealand College of Heralds, Prince James of Sealand.

HOWEVER, I do not know how to add photos of 1. The College of Heraldry Coat of Arms and 2. The Coat of Arms for the Prince Regent. Any one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.186.131 (talk • contribs)

• You don't. Look, first off the text is a copyright violation; it's just slightly modified to change tense from the sealand website. Second, it's completely promotional in nature. Third, it's not reliably sourced to secondary sources. This has now twice been removed from this article. Please stop adding it without addressing the serious issues I've noted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. I've just said more or less the same thing on another talk page. The article shouldn't be used to promote Sealand, we need independent sources. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Gents, as this is the second time you have erased the data I in-putted, I have to assume I the data was incorrectly admitted. Albeit there actually is a service that the micronation Sealand provide called Coats of Arms issued by the Sealand College of Heraldry. There appears to be a block to permitting the freedom of sharing information via your actions and those of others. I will therefore resign myself to looking at alternative places to share what information there is, as it does appear that there is some odd policing going on here for reasons I am unable to fathom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.94.31 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD relevant to this article

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E Mare Libertas (song). Doug Weller talk 21:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Population

The amount of Citizens is probably 50+, but that's not the population. The population is in fact usually zero as nobody is living there permanently any longer. --83.7.25.249 (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Popularion for Sealand is 27 as of 2002 (i found on Google)--46.130.144.221 (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

+1, let's delete misleading unsourced info. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do they live? On that small platform? --2.245.155.8 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Principality of Sealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015085734/http://www.muu.fi/amorph03/downloads/pdfs/principality_of_sealand.pdf to http://www.muu.fi/amorph03/downloads/pdfs/principality_of_sealand.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sealandgov.org/about
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.churchandeast.co.uk/Sealand%20update%204.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1823039.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.udiregelverk.no/~/media/Images/Rettskilder/Visa%20Code/Visa%20Code%20vedlegg%2010%20a.ashx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.economist.com/node/471742
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sealandgov.org/sealand-news/principality-notice-pn-025-04-international-sporting-activities-update
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDAR_files/docs/hansards/han/legislature_27/session_2/20091124_1930_01_han.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lechinois.ca/agenda/programme%20souvenir2007.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.churchandeast.co.uk/sealand.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2017

Please change 'platform' to 'gun platform' RullRatbwan (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@RullRatbwan: Not done: It is currently just a platform. The first paragraph does already adequately describe its former purpose as a anti-aircraft defensive gun platform. Both the current and historical status seem reasonably covered as far as that is concerned, so I don't see a need to change it. Murph9000 (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions

The articles on Sealand seem to contradict each other and themselves at points, probably due to unclear sources. For one thing, this article describes Michael Bates as living in Essex and Suffolk in the present tense different stages. Regarding the 1978 drama, the fullest account seems to be that Michael was first captured, then released away from the fort, before playing a role in the successful recapture mission, which he relates as "The biggest adrenaline rush of my life sliding down a rope from a hovering helicopter 100 ft above the rough North Sea with a shotgun hanging around my neck". This article on the other hand has him personally fighting back within the site, while the biographical article on Paddy Roy Bates describes Michael as hostage while his father "and others" launched the rescue mission. The Independent's obitury of "Princess" Joan and the Telegraph's obitury of the founding "Prince" both suggest Michael was taken prisoner in the course of the Bates family's attempt to retake the tower. A lot of sources also name the accused in the subsequent treason trial as Achenbach's lawyer, Gernot Pütz, not him personally. Billwilson5060 (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Battle of Sealand (conflict) - not a very good article, should just be a redirect

I'm not at all convinced this article should exist. The content fits easily into this article, and the way "The Battle of Sealand (conflict)" is written is an NPOV violation. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. DrKay (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That article is of course absurd. It is written as if it was a real military conflict including words like "belligerents", "commanders" and "casualties". --Andhanq (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Battle of Sealand

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nothing in the Battle of Sealand article that isn't appropriate for this article. Doug Weller talk 06:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Mergeable content is short enough to come here without the need for a separate article. DrKay (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. I would support this merge only if the page is fully merged into the principle article with its own section. Ideally, it should look pretty much exactly like this. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 17:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

@MJL: it can't. It's got sources that don't meet WP:RS, refers to Michal Bates as Prince Michael, etc. If it isn't merged it will have to be edited to conform to our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 18:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, welp.. I did add a WP:PRIMARY source and tagged article with {{Primary sources}}. I hope that helps a bit by moving it a long some. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 01:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: thanks. I won't edit that article until this is settled. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Twisted logic

• "The governments of the Netherlands, Austria and Germany petitioned the British government for his release, but the United Kingdom refused his imprisonment, citing the 1968 court decision"

But at the time he was imprisoned in Sealand, right? So how could the United Kingdom have released somebody, who was imprisoned outside the UK? By imprisoning him in the UK? But he was charged by Sealand with treason against Sealand, not the UK. What is the point here?
Vikom ^talk 01:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of the episode in the cited source, which is in any case the Sealand website and hence not reliable for the content in question. I've removed the sentence. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Vikom ^talk 01:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Expert legal opinions should be included on the legality of Sealand's sovereign status

There are a number of professors of law who have written in support of the legality of Sealand's sovereign status under international law. See the legal opinion of Dr. Walter Leisner, Professor of Law at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg:

http://principality-of-sealand.eu/pdf/e_opinion_leisner.pdf

And also the opinion of Dr. Béla Vitànyi, professor for public and international law at the University of Njimegen, Netherlands, in 1978:

http://www.principality-of-sealand.eu/archiv/opinion_leisner_e.html

I feel as if these opinions are worthy of note and should be include, albeit briefly, in the article's section on Sealand's legal status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron Ironside (talk • contribs) 22:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Both of these link to Leisner's paper, by the way. Have Leisner's opinions been published in any peer-reviewed journal? Uberstadt (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The website is an illegitimate Sealand website. The real one is at https://www.sealandgov.org. 68.5.142.21 (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for that, here is the link to the other paper:

http://principality-of-sealand.eu/archiv/opinion_vitanyi_e.html

From a quick search, both seem to be legitimate professors from said universities, however whether their papers have been peer reviewed I am uncertain. Most material online which relates to them seems to be in German and Dutch. Perhaps someone fluent in those languages would be able to track down the original source of these papers? Baron Ironside (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Baron Ironside

References

"pretend titles"

Resolved in July. DrKay (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe that refering to the titles as pretend shows quite an anti sealand bias and is not the correct way to convey something over Wikipedia, it could offend some, as sealand is a state with controversy surrounding its international status and taking sides is bad for the image of Wikipedia It would be the equivalent of calling the titles of a lord of Kosovo pretend, siding with Serbia. Maybe this could be resolved by just writing "titles" not "individual titles" or "pretend titles" but I think that the current situation of not mentioning them at all is a good approach. Gayehop (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Sealand is not a state and has no "international status". There is no controversy. It's a British-built, British-owned platform in British waters. The titles are pretend. DrKay (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

While the UK does not recognize Sealand, it does not claim Sealand either, keeping it with Gayehop's suggestion keeps it neutral and within the context of the page while maintaining a neutral point of view which is Wikipedia policy. It's not up to one person as to how it should be interpreted. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Assertion by International Law (of the sea) that man-made structures are not Islands"

So where does that place the numerous artificial islands created around the world (the most famous being in the China Sea?)ExpatSalopian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

International law has already ruled on that: Philippines v. China. DrKay (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is an international agreement BETWEEN members who SIGNED. Keep in mind two things, UNCLOS was signed AFTER Sealand was founded and two, that by it's own definition, it only applies to member states who have signed it. You can pretend that countries (like the United States) who haven't ratified it have to follow its rules, but they don't. UN members who have signed it follow them. Being that, A. The UK does NOT claim Sealand, B. Sealand didn't sign it and therefore it don't apply regardless of it's status and C. UNCLOS doesn't apply everywhere, but only to the countries you have signed it, Meaning that Sealand can't be dismissed solely based on UNCLOS because by definition UNCLOS applies to those who have signed it and Sealand hasn't. The UK did sign it, but you must note that whilst the UK doesn't recognize Sealand, it doesn't claim it either. That is not something debatable, it's fact. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 06:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not a fact. It's made-up garbage. British waters extend to 12-miles now, and Sealand is within that claim line. That claim line is internationally recognized not only by all signatories of UNCLOS, but also by the United States, as is the UK's EEZ in the North Sea, which extends well beyond Sealand to the North Sea midline. DrKay (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"Meaning that Sealand can't be dismissed solely based on UNCLOS because by definition UNCLOS applies to those who have signed it and Sealand hasn't." Sealand has to prove it is an sovereign country in the eye of other countries. If you start by assuming Sealand is not sovereign, then there's no need to have their sig on UNCLOS as the UK's sig would be enough... The UK signed UNCLOS and as such doesn't consider Sealand a foreign territory. But good point on UNCLOS being younger than Sealand, meaning it could've been grandfathered (but isn't)193.191.221.220 (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Structure of Government

Under the "Organizational structure" tab on the country infobox, the only thing there is "Prince | Michael Bates." Im going to add the proper structure as seen in the Sealand constitution. I wanted to ask about wording. For sourcing, Im pulling from both Source 1. "Information on the Principality of Sealand including Bates Family, GDP, Constitution." Im also pulling directly from the Sealandic constitution. Ill be referencing both the constitution and page two of source one, there's a nice flow chart there. For adding the Senate, which is described in Article 2 as a "formal senate." For inclusion on the infobox, I think it should go under "Prince | Michael Bates." and be set up like "Formal Senate | Senate" I can pust Article 2 here, but it'd be a bit long. Let me know if you think the wording should be different in the infobox. Thank you --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This is, in my view, an unreliable primary source, and material in Wikipedia articles shouldn't be based on unreliable primary sources. It's particularly inappropriate to put such material in the infobox where you can't use the usual phraseology to denote that something has been drawn from a primary source (According to...). Wham2001 (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a question that can *only* be answered by a primary source, as Sealand decides how Sealand is structured. 193.191.221.220 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It's pulled straight from the Sealandic constitution. Probably the best primary source document for the contents of this page. I would be using the usual phraseology, Im just gauging input from others to see if anyone else would have it implemented in a different location. All the usual phraseology is already used in the infobox for this. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Unrecognized

The WP micronation article describes micronations as follows: "A micronation expresses a formal and persistent if unrecognized claim of sovereignty over some physical territory." My understanding for over a decade has been the same: micronations are fanciful and unrecognized. It seems redundant, then, to use "unrecognized micronation" in the lead when we could just say "micronation". What are other editors' thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct, it's redundant and should not be there. It would either be micronation or unrecognized nation. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see above regarding the result of leaving this out being that some people think we are describing Sealand as a "real" nation. Britmax (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hetalia?

I don't know if it needs notating but Sealand is represented in a singular episode of the anime Hetalia (ep21,) is this worth adding to the reference list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoblinGrader (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoblinGrader I did some research on this and wasn't able to find any WP:RS that cover this in any meaningful way. There are a couple "Anime news networks" that mention the Sealand character but don't explicitly write anything about it being a reference to the real Sealand, even though the connection there may be obvious. Ultimately I decided not to include this in the reference list because these sources have no editorial oversight and don't actually discuss (or directly address) the reference at all. PDXBart (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It is a reference to the real Sealand: most of the characters in Hetalia are personifications of countries throughout history. And I do think its mention in the series is significant in bringing attention to the micronation. But as you say, we need some decent references to include this in the article, and they don't exist. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

‘Succeeded’ by Michael Bates

Someone keeps adding that Paddy Bates was ‘succeeded’ by his son. He wasn’t. You cannot succeed to a fictional title. The so-called source provided is a blog; no acceptable source states that Bates ‘succeeded’ his father. He styles himself as a Prince/monarch, but we could all do that. There is no recognised territory for him to rule. 148.252.128.92 (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

no recognized title yes, but de facto control was passed down, even if this control was unrecognized 84.9.116.141 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Then that's how it needs to be described - not as 'succession'. 2A00:23C7:8905:CC01:E98F:258F:F01A:B9EC (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Super old convo but I disagree - succession is a term used constantly outside the use of royal lineage, including in business. "Succeeded" is a perfectly cromulent word to use here. PDXBart (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Just realized this discussion was here after my edit attempt. Seems some are persistent that "succeeded" is only used for official positions only. You learn something new everyday. Snickerdoooodle (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Well of course it’s only used for official positions. You cant succeed to something that doesn’t exist.

Someone above tried to argue that ‘succeeded’ is also used in a business context. That isn’t really relevant, as it’s not a business under discussion here - it’s an invented title. If we were going to use the business analogy, the CEO of Marks and Spencer, for example, could be succeeded in the position, because it’s a real position. If, however, some disgruntled employee declared a closed M&S store an independent company with himself as the CEO, his children can’t ‘succeed’ him in that position, because there is no independent company and therefore no CEO position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:12C8:5A7B:79E4:D18A:F6AC:14D2 (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. Paddy Bates's son succeeded him in being the claimant to that title. I can just as well say the New York Yankees succeeded the Brooklyn Dodgers as my father's favorite baseball team. All "succeeded" means is "followed", "came after". Largoplazo (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree for the same reasons as above. I think the terminology sounds the best in the sentence as well. Johnson524 (Talk!) 19:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Page Protection?

Do you think that the page should be put on pending changes or even semi-protection at this point? I have this page on my watchlist, and it seems to get vandalised every other day. Admittedly, there are enough people who watch the page where these edits aren't up for any extended period of time, but it would be helpful not to revert these vandal edits so often. Johnson524 (Talk!) 02:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. You can file a request at RfPP. Heavy Water (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Johnson524 (Talk!) 14:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)