This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2008. 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
What are you talking about? I'm not challenging Lonely Planet - why do you think that? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate ( talk) 19:00, 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 received a response from the government of Sealand. I would request that at least the two most involved editors in this discussion, Gene poole and Onecanadasquarebishopsgate, and anyone else who has a significant interest in this article, ensure that their e-mail is enabled and let me know when they have done so to allow me to forward to them the message I have received so that we can all discuss this new information. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that WP:SPS shows that Sealand News is not reliable. Should Sealand News be removed from this article as a source? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate ( talk) 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This article claims: "Matt Hyland of London, Ontario became Sealand's first official Bronze Medalist at the 2004 Summer Olympics. His victory was in high jump." No source is provided, and the claim conflicts with an article about the Olympics which states that Jaroslav Bába of the Czech Republic won the Olympic bronze in the men's high jump at the 2004 Olympics. Aridd ( talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This medal was won by Joan Lino Martínez Armenteros User:Npnunda —Preceding comment was added at 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
John Lino Martinez did not win the medal for Sealand. I was just posting who won the medal in question. Matt Hyland didn't win the bronze for high jump John Lino Martizez did for spain http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/athens2004/track_field/results?medals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npnunda ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just read the section on 2006's fire for the first time, and I can't say I believe a word of it - apart from the fire itself, which was widely reported. Where did the story about the crazed female attacker come from? Unless there's a reputable source supporting it I propose to delete it as a fictional insertion. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 03:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are there email addresses in the references section? I don't even know if they are real - should we remove them? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
what was the legal status of the coup? certainly actions in international waters could be prosecuted under piracy laws, and participating in a coup would be illegal. From where did the helicopter attack launch. what type of arms were involved? is this a joke, or was it a real conflict? What was the motivation of the coup? Rds865 ( talk) 02:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
you can buy a title from sealand here. http://www.redsave.com/products/Become-a-Lord,-Lady,-Baron-or-Baroness,,21 does anyone know if it is legitimate? Rds865 ( talk) 04:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
is
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=188 a reliable source? it mentions Micheal treatment when kidnapped, banns on drinking and smoking, as well as other rules and a possible takeover plan by the UK.
Rds865 (
talk)
06:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, is
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200007%5CFor20000728b.html? It has good info, but there are possibly some errors.
The Dark Overlord (
talk)
21:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If they had learned some Latin, they would have known that it is "E mari libertas" (ablative and not accusative). MaartenVidal ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Where did the content about "Sealandish gypsies" come from? I propose to delete it as vandalism unless someone can show there's some basis in reality to the statement. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 06:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read in several places that the fake passports were given out by Achenbach. Can anybody confirm this? The Dark Overlord ( talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have heard of many differient versions of the assault story, many of which give the leader differient names, such as Gernot Putz [1]. Could somebody try to confirm the real story The Dark Overlord ( talk) 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems Sealand News has removed its "facts" page - probably after it was decided to send Sealand an e-mail about the word "micronation". After quickly searching for "micronation" in the other pages and not finding it, it is possible that they have been asked not to use the word as a description anymore. If this is true, this can affect the article in the future. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ive translated "E Mare Libertas", it means Out of Sea, Freedom, not From the sea, freedom. -- The Republic of Ben 10 ( talk) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
For a having a nation, the first criteria is that it must be a part of the surface of the earth. Only thereafter do criteria such as recognition, de-facto recognition etc apply. Sealand is not a part of the surface of the earth, it is a float above a sand bank. It has the same legal status as a ship. Its 'Government' is as much a Government as the butcher in his shop at the corner who says he is a Duke. Its titles the same ... The whole Principality is a hoax that has been taken very seriously by the 'Sealanders' themselves, some dreamers tired of reality and nobody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LutzBrux ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Principality of Sealand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'm sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am quickfailing it due to the various cleanup tags: citation needed, unreliable source, vague, and clarify. Please fix these before renominating. Here are some other things to work on:
Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with improving the article. Nikki 311 01:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Principality of Sealand/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I do not believe this article is ready yet for GA status. I have added {{fact}} tags where additional citations may be necessary. Also, the lead mentions that "Citing court rulings in the United States and in Germany, critics have asserted that Roughs Tower has always remained under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom" yet no such court rulings are mentioned in the article.
As the article is relatively short, I would recommend cleaning up and merging Legal status of Sealand into this article. Since the debate over whether this territory is actually it's own state is probably the only reason this article even exists, that information can certainly presented in the main article. Further, per WP:ENGVAR, the article needs to be consistent in its use of American vs. British grammar. For example, there are instances when both "defense" and "defence" are used, as well as "recognize" and "recognise".
Please renominate when the above revisions have been made! Best, epicAdam ( talk) 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I added templates to the articles because I wanted the opinions of other editors before we continue with the merge. Merge or don't merge? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge. If I recall correctly, the legal status article was originally created or expanded as a fork by a long-vanished problem editor who apparently had a personal axe to grind with Roy Bates dating from pirate radio days. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 04:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, gotta Merge. Vidor ( talk) 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Merge-- Wilson ( talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
merge-- Kitty 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
merge Icedog ( talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This merger has now been performed. Since Legal status of Sealand contained no material supported by reliable sources beyond what is already in Principality of Sealand, the merger did not result in any material being added to Principality of Sealand. PL290 ( talk) 19:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
There's something about this article that I think is missing. What reason did Bates claim for leaving England and forming his own country? Surely a declaration of sovereignty would at least explain this much? DerekMBarnes ( talk) 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have again re-written the last sentence of the intro section, as follows:
The United Kingdom's position is that it has always exercised jurisdiction over Roughs Tower; the Bates' have never mounted any formal challenge to that position.
This is a simple uncontroversial summation of the situation.
Ample citable sources exist to substantiate the UK's position - including cabinet papers dating to the 1960s.
No citation is necessary to support the second part of the statement, which can only be challenged by the existence of sources which prove it to be incorrect. No such sources exist. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Lonely Planet does actually say "outside the control of the United Kingdom", not "outside the court's jurisdiction". However it is true that Bates has not tested Sealand's sovereignty in any official court as far as we know (even that is not clear, but seeing as we need sources to support claims in Wikipedia, we can say that that the sovereignty hasn't been tested). - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Reference #12, to the lonely planet guidebook that is used 7 times in the article (a-g), can be previewed without copyright infringement on google books http://books.google.com.au/books?id=5ZRrwrlIPSYC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA13&ots=GpokmFq3IP&dq=Micronations,+Lonely+Planet+sealand perhaps that should be what the reference points to.
I've so far found that this is wrong
"1997: Due to the massive quantity of illegal passports in circulation (estimated at 150,000)[citation needed], the Bates family revoked all Sealand passports, including those that they themselves had issued in the previous thirty years.[12]"
The lonely planet guidebook states and a section in this wikipedia article state that Bates started issuing passports in 1975 so they only revoked passports they issued over the past 22 years, not thirty.
Please adjust the article and check on other "facts" in the wikipedia article using this reference. I'm too new and get yelled at for changing stuff. ( Abacusbox ( talk) 17:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC))
This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2008. 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
What are you talking about? I'm not challenging Lonely Planet - why do you think that? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate ( talk) 19:00, 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 received a response from the government of Sealand. I would request that at least the two most involved editors in this discussion, Gene poole and Onecanadasquarebishopsgate, and anyone else who has a significant interest in this article, ensure that their e-mail is enabled and let me know when they have done so to allow me to forward to them the message I have received so that we can all discuss this new information. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that WP:SPS shows that Sealand News is not reliable. Should Sealand News be removed from this article as a source? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate ( talk) 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This article claims: "Matt Hyland of London, Ontario became Sealand's first official Bronze Medalist at the 2004 Summer Olympics. His victory was in high jump." No source is provided, and the claim conflicts with an article about the Olympics which states that Jaroslav Bába of the Czech Republic won the Olympic bronze in the men's high jump at the 2004 Olympics. Aridd ( talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This medal was won by Joan Lino Martínez Armenteros User:Npnunda —Preceding comment was added at 03:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
John Lino Martinez did not win the medal for Sealand. I was just posting who won the medal in question. Matt Hyland didn't win the bronze for high jump John Lino Martizez did for spain http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/athens2004/track_field/results?medals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npnunda ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just read the section on 2006's fire for the first time, and I can't say I believe a word of it - apart from the fire itself, which was widely reported. Where did the story about the crazed female attacker come from? Unless there's a reputable source supporting it I propose to delete it as a fictional insertion. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 03:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are there email addresses in the references section? I don't even know if they are real - should we remove them? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
what was the legal status of the coup? certainly actions in international waters could be prosecuted under piracy laws, and participating in a coup would be illegal. From where did the helicopter attack launch. what type of arms were involved? is this a joke, or was it a real conflict? What was the motivation of the coup? Rds865 ( talk) 02:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
you can buy a title from sealand here. http://www.redsave.com/products/Become-a-Lord,-Lady,-Baron-or-Baroness,,21 does anyone know if it is legitimate? Rds865 ( talk) 04:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
is
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=188 a reliable source? it mentions Micheal treatment when kidnapped, banns on drinking and smoking, as well as other rules and a possible takeover plan by the UK.
Rds865 (
talk)
06:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, is
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200007%5CFor20000728b.html? It has good info, but there are possibly some errors.
The Dark Overlord (
talk)
21:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
If they had learned some Latin, they would have known that it is "E mari libertas" (ablative and not accusative). MaartenVidal ( talk) 15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Where did the content about "Sealandish gypsies" come from? I propose to delete it as vandalism unless someone can show there's some basis in reality to the statement. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 06:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have read in several places that the fake passports were given out by Achenbach. Can anybody confirm this? The Dark Overlord ( talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have heard of many differient versions of the assault story, many of which give the leader differient names, such as Gernot Putz [1]. Could somebody try to confirm the real story The Dark Overlord ( talk) 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems Sealand News has removed its "facts" page - probably after it was decided to send Sealand an e-mail about the word "micronation". After quickly searching for "micronation" in the other pages and not finding it, it is possible that they have been asked not to use the word as a description anymore. If this is true, this can affect the article in the future. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ive translated "E Mare Libertas", it means Out of Sea, Freedom, not From the sea, freedom. -- The Republic of Ben 10 ( talk) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
For a having a nation, the first criteria is that it must be a part of the surface of the earth. Only thereafter do criteria such as recognition, de-facto recognition etc apply. Sealand is not a part of the surface of the earth, it is a float above a sand bank. It has the same legal status as a ship. Its 'Government' is as much a Government as the butcher in his shop at the corner who says he is a Duke. Its titles the same ... The whole Principality is a hoax that has been taken very seriously by the 'Sealanders' themselves, some dreamers tired of reality and nobody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LutzBrux ( talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Principality of Sealand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'm sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am quickfailing it due to the various cleanup tags: citation needed, unreliable source, vague, and clarify. Please fix these before renominating. Here are some other things to work on:
Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with improving the article. Nikki 311 01:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Principality of Sealand/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I do not believe this article is ready yet for GA status. I have added {{fact}} tags where additional citations may be necessary. Also, the lead mentions that "Citing court rulings in the United States and in Germany, critics have asserted that Roughs Tower has always remained under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom" yet no such court rulings are mentioned in the article.
As the article is relatively short, I would recommend cleaning up and merging Legal status of Sealand into this article. Since the debate over whether this territory is actually it's own state is probably the only reason this article even exists, that information can certainly presented in the main article. Further, per WP:ENGVAR, the article needs to be consistent in its use of American vs. British grammar. For example, there are instances when both "defense" and "defence" are used, as well as "recognize" and "recognise".
Please renominate when the above revisions have been made! Best, epicAdam ( talk) 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I added templates to the articles because I wanted the opinions of other editors before we continue with the merge. Merge or don't merge? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge. If I recall correctly, the legal status article was originally created or expanded as a fork by a long-vanished problem editor who apparently had a personal axe to grind with Roy Bates dating from pirate radio days. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 04:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, gotta Merge. Vidor ( talk) 18:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Merge-- Wilson ( talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
merge-- Kitty 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
merge Icedog ( talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This merger has now been performed. Since Legal status of Sealand contained no material supported by reliable sources beyond what is already in Principality of Sealand, the merger did not result in any material being added to Principality of Sealand. PL290 ( talk) 19:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
There's something about this article that I think is missing. What reason did Bates claim for leaving England and forming his own country? Surely a declaration of sovereignty would at least explain this much? DerekMBarnes ( talk) 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have again re-written the last sentence of the intro section, as follows:
The United Kingdom's position is that it has always exercised jurisdiction over Roughs Tower; the Bates' have never mounted any formal challenge to that position.
This is a simple uncontroversial summation of the situation.
Ample citable sources exist to substantiate the UK's position - including cabinet papers dating to the 1960s.
No citation is necessary to support the second part of the statement, which can only be challenged by the existence of sources which prove it to be incorrect. No such sources exist. -- Gene_poole ( talk) 05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Lonely Planet does actually say "outside the control of the United Kingdom", not "outside the court's jurisdiction". However it is true that Bates has not tested Sealand's sovereignty in any official court as far as we know (even that is not clear, but seeing as we need sources to support claims in Wikipedia, we can say that that the sovereignty hasn't been tested). - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Reference #12, to the lonely planet guidebook that is used 7 times in the article (a-g), can be previewed without copyright infringement on google books http://books.google.com.au/books?id=5ZRrwrlIPSYC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA13&ots=GpokmFq3IP&dq=Micronations,+Lonely+Planet+sealand perhaps that should be what the reference points to.
I've so far found that this is wrong
"1997: Due to the massive quantity of illegal passports in circulation (estimated at 150,000)[citation needed], the Bates family revoked all Sealand passports, including those that they themselves had issued in the previous thirty years.[12]"
The lonely planet guidebook states and a section in this wikipedia article state that Bates started issuing passports in 1975 so they only revoked passports they issued over the past 22 years, not thirty.
Please adjust the article and check on other "facts" in the wikipedia article using this reference. I'm too new and get yelled at for changing stuff. ( Abacusbox ( talk) 17:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC))