Jump to content

Talk:Principality of Sealand/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Re: recognition

Is there any plan for reaching a consensus on this article? I'd be happy to provide any information I have to help impartial people come up with a reasonable article here -- I have comprehensive photo galleries under my copyright from when I lived on Sealand (http://photos.venona.com/ anything not marked "professional" is mine and fine to use here).

There's certainly a conscious effort by the "Sealand Government" to exaggerate their size and other supporting evidence (a relatively complex government on paper, when in actual practice it is Michael Bates and Lew Schnurr, neither of whom live on Sealand, and maybe 3-4 assistants), but at some level, the structure does exist and has complied with certain legal formalities or at least attempted to do so for 30+ years.

I don't know how one would best convey this to someone who had never before heard of Sealand and saw this article, which is I guess the target audience.

Wik, I don't see what the problem with "officially" modifying the "recognized" is. It has been unofficially recognized on numerous occasions including (but not limited to) the dispatch of diplomats to negotiate the return of (criminal) prisoners and the numerous trials in England that have stated that actions were not done on English soil. Maybe you could elucidate? -- EmperorBMA / ブライアン 18:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

None of this constitutes recognition. I have yet to see evidence that any court has stated that Sealand is outside the U.K. after the U.K. extended its territorial waters. And before, it was merely recognition of the obvious, that the tower was located in international waters. This is in no way a recognition of Sealand. --Wik 18:53, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
Firing on a ship, being taken to court and having the case THROWN out because you are "overseas" kind of constitutes a de facto recognition, wouldn't you agree? (PS that was in 1990. After the expansion) -- EmperorBMA / ブライアン 19:52, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Except I can't find anything on this supposed court case other than claims by Sealand itself. What is the source of your information? --Wik 20:11, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
So explain why England still doesn't tax the Bates while they are in Sealand. -- EmperorBMA / ブラ&7#12452;アン 20:26, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"A Revenue spokesman said: 'Sealand is under UK jurisdiction for tax purposes.' The government has said it does not recognise Sealand as an independent country." [1] So if any U.K. law is not enforced with regard to Sealand, it is for practical reasons due to its location, and has nothing to do with its claim of independence. --Wik 20:34, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of this, it has been historically treated like an independant nation and both/either should be properly noted. I still don't see the point of taking "officially" out since it is still true. -- EmperorBMA / ブライアン 21:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how it has been treated like an independent nation at all. And saying it has not been officially recognized implies that it has been unofficially recognized. --Wik 21:17, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
OK then. Just make sure someone else doesn't have objections before you change it. -- EmperorBMA / ブライアン 21:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

old talk

I think it's not an oil platform but an old wwii military platform Joao

You're right. Changed. Justfred

I think this article gives too much credence to Bates' claims. Especially the statement "The United Kingdom asserts no claim over the territory, and generally treats Sealand as if it were an independent state" -- that is not true. For one thing, a man-made platform isn't territory unless it is built on rocks which are exposed to the surface at least some of the time. The tower is in British territorial waters (although in the past it was not), and therefore is subject to British jurisdiction. So the claim "The United Kingdom asserts no claim over the territory" is false. Bates claims that Britain couldn't extend its territorial waters to include Sealand, since Sealand was by then supposedly an independent state. But it almost certaintly is not an independendent state, since by any reasonable interpretation it fails to meet the Montevideo convention criteria. The United Kingdom does not "generally treats Sealand as if it were an independent state", the UK government simply ignores Bates.

Again, the claim "Great Britain has never formally recognized Sealand's independence, but as affirmed by several decisions by British courts and government agencies, Sealand enjoys a de facto sovereignty" isn't true. The United Kingdom recognized it as outside their territorial jurisdiction prior to their extension of territorial waters to 12 nautical miles. Since then it has been under UK jurisdiction. If there has been no official UK pronouncement to that effect (beyond the one concerning the extension of the territorial sea) with respect to Sealand, it is simply because the UK government and courts regard Bates as a kook and choose to ignore him.

And I could go on... -- SJK

Even after the extension of waters to 12 nm, there have been several interactions with UK courts; firearms incident in 1990, etc.; where they ruled they didn't have jurisdiction.

There's a lot of precedent on the extension-of-waters front which favors Sealand. When the treaty was signed, this issue came up repeatedly. Otherwise, neighboring countries could claim the territory of others.

Sealand being of artificial construction is unique also, since it was constructed illegally by a third party (UK) during WW2, for a purpose other than land extension. Sealand existed and was a country long before the relevant UN treaties on artificial structures in the sea. Several promiment law professors have basically said Sealand's status as land is the same as reclaimed land in Holland or elsewhere. I can include hypertext links to these documents.

I'll include a summary of the legal issues in another edit of the article (and re-edit the HavenCo article to be a bit more factual; I just cut and pasted quickly to get something up) -- Ryan Lackey

I would love to see copies or references to these court decisions. Frankly, people trying to start their own countries have a long history of interaction with courts, and in all the cases I've seen, they've misrepresented court decisions as being favourable to them that were anything but. (Witness e.g. the "Republic of Texas" and the ICJ, and the "Kingdom of Hawaii" and the PCA.)

How was the UK construction of it illegal?

Secondly, even if you are correct in stating Roughs Tower as being territory, that doesn't make Sealand a state. Merely claiming unoccupied territory is not sufficent to bring a new state into existence. At the very least it needs to comply with the Montevideo convention criteria, and likely needs to be recognized by other states as well.

And the extension of waters argument only works if Sealand is a state. -- SJK

Someone added to the article:

Thus, the situation of the Vatican, where citizenship (approximately 170) and residency are primarily based on occupation, is less clear than the population of Pitcairn Island, which has a population approximately the same as Sealand (<50) but whose population is primarily hereditary and permanent.

Pitcairn Island is not a state, it is a British dependent territory. Therefore the size of Pitcairn Island is irrelevant to the issue of the Montevideo Convention criteria. -- SJK

Wiki really needs cvs; you clobbered a long submission I was making to /talk

The UN has repeatedly upheld the right of self determination of "dependent territory" non-self-governing people. If Pitcairn wanted to become independent, they would 1) have every right to by UN agreements 2) would be encouraged to do so by the UK (there was a white paper circulated by the UK to british dependent territories about ~2 years ago which asked them to do so, since the EU is now trying to force the UK to either give overseas territory British passports or make them independent (perhaps commonwealth, though). I was living on Anguilla, another british dependent territory, at the time, and it was a major issue.

Sealand's claims, regardless of validity, are much more complex than Hutt River, Republic of Texas, etc., even if only due to touching on admiralty/maritime law (which is very complex) and that the issue has now dragged out over nearly 60 years; the laws have actually changed several times in the interim.

There are perhaps 7 major points:

  • Artificial territory/structures as "land" -- affirmed by Montego Bay 1982, and some prior
  • Right of self-determination of any people (affirmed by UN, UK, EU)
  • extension of territorial waters not applying to territory or facilities or anything else of consequence -- this was a condition of many states being willing to agree
  • Actions of Sealand government 1966-present
  • Extraterritorial status of Sealand w.r.t. UK 1945-1966+
  • Opinions of various experts
  • Actions of other nations and organizations

I'll make 1-2 paragraph wiki articles about each topic and then deep-link onto the legal site with original documents.

Okay, for starts, where is this legal site? -- SJK

The most relevant single opinion is the Vitanyi opinion; a copy is at http://www.venona.com/rdl/opinion01.html -- Vitanyi

Whatever Vitanyi has to say, one has to ask: is his view shared by the majority in his field? In any field you will find minorities with some ideas far from the mainstream, even professors. Of course, sometimes the minorities turn out to be right. However, more often than not, the majority is right. This is especially the case with a field such a law. The law tends to closely follow the opinion of the majority of the legal professions, since it is to a significant extent constituted by their opinions. I strongly suspect the majority of experts in the field of international law would disagree with Vitanyi. -- SJK

He (was at the time) one of *the* top maritime international law authorities. I *think* he's dead now; he was presumably quite old when it was written (1970s). A few people at law schools in the US have found a lot more information in the process of writing journal articles on Sealand, which is what I'm pulling together for a legal site.

Even the UK cabinet stuff from ~1968 said the legal situation was entirely likely to go against the UK.

The most accurate/useful article for wikipedia is probably to just make it clear it is under debate, and point out the various issues, and then provide details as to what Sealand is actually like in practice (aside from the sovereignty issue, which is only one aspect)

Even people top of their fields can be wrong, and people at the top of their fields can have strange opinions that end up being rejected in their field. That Sealand is an independent state is pretty likely to be an example of this. And international law has changed in quite a few ways since the 1970s.

Secondly, I haven't actually seen the UK cabinet stuff, but you have to distinguish two issues: whether the UK had (or has) jurisdiction over Roughs Tower, and whether the Sealand is a state. They may well have felt they were on shaky legal ground on the first point, but I doubt very much they thought for a moment they'd have a problem on the second. Vitanyi's musings aside, if the issue of "is Sealand a state" came before a British court (or for that matter, just about any other court), what answer do you think they'll give? Its almost certain the answer is no. They'd think "if we let small numbers of private individuals establish new states, absolute anarchy would soon result. There would be new states popping up everywhere." Once they start thinking like that, they will adopt a suitable legal position to support it. (As to the Liberia or Orange Free State or Transvaal arguments, let me simply point out that they occured in a different historical period and involved several orders of magnitude more people than Sealand does.)

There is absolutely never going to be any chance of any court or government in the world formally recognizing Sealand as a state. I'm willing to bet any amount of money on that. -- SJK

If you bet "any amount of money" and can back it up, it's not a problem. I can do exactly what Taiwan did, and pay ~3 small countries (Grenada, etc.) and build nice roads for them, about $50m each, in exchange for recognition. This is cheating, though.

If "is Sealand a state" came up before a British court, I think they would almost certainly try as hard as they possibly could to not answer that question specifically, but to rule on other points. There are many possible avenues for this kind of legal challenge, and the EU human rights legislation only adds to it.

Sealand is more plausible/compatible as a new state than the other "micronations" due to the conditions for establishing Sealand no longer being possible -- the ammendments to the law of the sea in 1982 *specifically* prohibiting such actions in the future. After Sealand was proclaimed, the UK immediately went out and destroyed the other remaining offshore forts left over from the war (there were 6 total), to prevent similar kindso f things. Recognizing Sealand does *not* make it possible to do this again.

This is why AU/NZ send someone every year to many of their strategic uninhabited islands in the pacific, and why the prince of Tonga was so quick to invade when people occupied a reef in his territory.

Accepting Sealand as a state would set a precedent. Even if the particular means by which Sealand came into existence was closed, people would look for other loopholes. Even if no harm would came in itself from recognizing Sealand, why would any state want to (except possibly for you bribing poorer ones)? Most countries in the world would have an exceedingly low opinion of what you are trying to do.

Frankly, you are a whacko. Anyone foolish enough to think a small group of private individuals can just start their own state without an army or without any serious international support is a whacko. Your legal arguments are irrelevant: people can find psuedo-legal arguments for just about anything. Even if a very small minority of legal experts (at least some of whom are long dead) supports you, that doesn't show that you aren't a whacko: it just shows that even distinguished legal experts can be whackos at times as well. The law is ultimately a creature of politics, and no amount of abstract legal argumentation can prove something which is an absolute politicial impossibility to be legally binding. -- SJK

The legal case is only important in as much as it helps in practical realization of sovereignty. One route is having a massive military, enough to intimidate the US and UK. Another way is by winning the PR battle, either by getting a powerful ethnic/religious group on our side (e.g. Israel/US), or by solving a political problem (FRY), or by being relatively inconsequential (most caribbean nations). The legal argument is interesting in the abstract, but is only one factor in the reality of the situation.

I think that we are continuing to exist shows that we've made it more painful to attack us than to ignore/tolerate. And we persist in making money, and have sufficient technical means to accomplish our goals, using crypto and tamper-resistance. And we have other states who are entirely willing to set up additional datahaven zones for HavenCo. We have sufficient recognition to do what we want, and then trend over time is certainly in our favor.

There *are* people who have tried this kind of thing -- using jurisdiction to avoid or evade various regulations in the past. They have -- made poor countries with not a single sailor into registrars of a good percentage of the world's shipping -- made islands in the caribbean with initially nothing into the *biggest* reinsurance centers in the world -- created headquarters for some of the world's biggest companies on small islands in the middle of nowhere -- etc. And as you mentioned, the various African states of the 1800s, plus various caribbean states of ~20-30 years ago.

Wonderful article. Several months ago Wired magazine had a wonderful illustrated piece on Sealand. If I find the reference, I'll add it to your references. -- Gjalexei

The article states:

"British Goverment documents, now available to the public under the 30 year expiration of confidentiality, show that the UK drafted plans to retake the fortress, but such plans were nixed by the Prime Minister due to potential for loss of life, and concomitant legal and public relations disaster."

Were these plans made before Roy Bates moved in?

I have asked for permission to use some pictures from Seland to make the articel look better. see Talk:Sealand/emails giskart 21:23 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC) (IRL walter vermeir)

The plans to invade Sealand/Roughs Tower were made *after* Roy Bates moved in and declared Sealand. Until that point they were completely abandoned by Trinity House, the relevant UK government department. -- Ryan Lackey

Of course, to Sealand's credit, they haven't been trying to use their status as a seperate nation to their illegal benefit, like quite a few other attempts at micronations. -- User:Wirehead

"This means that it is unimaginable that a case like Sealand will ever occur again. "

What about newly formed land in international water due to volcanic activities? Will that still leave a loop hole that allow history to repeat?

67.117.82.5 23:31, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

letters from Sealand

I got 2 letters from 2 bureaux of the Principality in the post today, in response to my queries. I will try to add them later on, when I procrastinate on other things. (But Sealand ain't the same after Ryan left -- lost lots of coolness.) --Kaihsu Tai 11:06, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

SJK, I object to your tactics. I will summarize and paraphrase your posts below.

"Let me see the legal website you're talking about."

"I clearly haven't read that link you posted, but whatever Vitanyi has to say, its irrelevant. What's important are the majority of legal experts."

"Now that you've cited the opinion of other legal experts, I'm no longer interested in legal experts. Even they can be wrong. What would a court say? Its almost certain the answer is no. I have no legal opinions to substantiate this with, but here's what they would probably say:

They'd think "if we let small numbers of private individuals establish new states, absolute anarchy would soon result. There would be new states popping up everywhere."

Again, I cite no legal opinion but my own, but that's what I think. There's absolutely no chance of any government ever recognizing Sealand. Again, I state no basis for this, but if I offer to bet large sums of money it will strengthen my case."

"I no longer care about your legal arguments, and clearly never cared about them in the first place. They are irrelevant. You are a whacko."

Your concerns are consistently addressed as you state them, after which you retreat and say that the concerns you just raised are not relevant. I, an anonymous commenter, am not impressed.

Wik: Stop making these changes. The sovereignty status of Sealand is "under debate", with valid arguments on both sides as to whether it is an actual country or not. Your arguments about it being not an actual principality are just that — arguments. As it is an issue under debate, and as Wikipedia has an NPOV policy, you cannot just say "this isn't a principality" and remove all references to it. -Branddobbe 00:12, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

No country recognizes Sealand. There is no debate among those who would matter. You can always find individual professors who express whatever opinion you want, but that's irrelevant. Self-proclaimed countries that no one else recognizes are not countries. --Wik 00:17, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to determine whether Sealand is a country or not. Nor is it the place of Wikipedia editors to determine whether the people who hold a particular opinion matter or not. No country recognizes Sealand, so document that. Many people consider Sealand to be a country, so document that. The facts that countries and certain people hold particular opinions about Sealand are facts and indisputable. Wikipedia:NPOV is not really so hard. As a Wikipedia regular you should be getting good at this, Wik. Jdavidb 20:51, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"Many people consider Sealand to be a country". Ha! :) Martin 21:54, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A self-proclaimed country that has been recognized by the courts of the country it seceded from, even if not by that country's federal government, has at least a reasonable case in proclaiming its sovereignty. This is shown repeatedly throughout the article. Thus, you can't just say that it is unquestionably not its own sovereign country — and you can't remove references to it as such. It's not like article is saying "Sealand is definitely a country and everyone who disagrees is wrong"; it's saying that the issue is under debate, and you are removing information that gives the article a definite bias, especially considering how important the introduction is in setting the tone of the article in the reader's mind. Treating the soveriegnty argument like a joke goes against NPOV and you really need to stop. -Branddobbe 00:25, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
How has it been recognized by the courts? I don't see this in the article. --Wik 00:37, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
"In 1968, the British navy perhaps attempted to evict the new inhabitants of Roughs Tower, or perhaps came to repair a nearby buoy. Prince Roy responded by firing several shots at the vessels, and as a result was summoned to a British court. The court delivered its decision on November 25, 1968: since the incident happened outside of British territory, it was outside of the court's jurisdiction. The UK government continued to harass the occupants of Sealand for 15 years with a series of litigations involving payment of social security taxes, television licensing, and other matters, but the court has consistently ruled Sealand was not a part of the United Kingdom."
" . . . the Dutch participants in the invasion were repatriated at the cessation of the 'war.' The governments of the Netherlands and Germany petitioned the British government for his release, but the United Kingdom disavowed all responsibility, citing the 1968 court decision."
"Several legal challenges in the UK subsequent to that date have reaffirmed Sealand's status as being outside the UK, although the question of Sealand's sovereignty was not judged. These cases include a firearms incident in 1990, where Prince Roy fired upon the Royal Maritime Auxiliary vessel 'Golden Eye'."
"Additionally, despite passing highly restrictive legislation such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the UK Government has made no efforts to regulate communications or require records from computer servers located on Sealand."
"The United Kingdom has not made any efforts to assert its authority over Roughs Tower, and appears to have a government policy of refraining from comment or action except when forced."
Does that answer your question? -Branddobbe 00:45, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
No, there is no recognition there. In 1968 it was of course outside U.K. territory, because it was in international waters as defined then, but later the British territorial waters were extended and there was no exemption made for Sealand. If you can document a court decision from after that time which explicitly declared Sealand outside the U.K. I would be interested to see it. And that the U.K. doesn't bother to "assert its authority over Roughs Tower" it's because it's irrelevant. As soon as anything seriously illegal would go on there, you can bet the thing would be gone immediately. Your version of the article is completely biased in favour of "Sealand", constantly referring to it as if it were a real state. --Wik 00:56, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Again, according to the article: "[B]oth the United Kingdom and Sealand have extended its territorial sea to twelve nautical miles, in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Several legal challenges in the UK subsequent to that date have reaffirmed Sealand's status as being outside the UK, although the question of Sealand's sovereignty was not judged. These cases include a firearms incident in 1990, where Prince Roy fired upon the Royal Maritime Auxiliary vessel 'Golden Eye'." -Branddobbe 01:09, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
I don't believe it. Document those cases. --Wik 01:18, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
If you "don't believe it" that's your problem, not mine. You can't just accept Wikipedia as a source until you come across something you don't like. Furthermore, it's immature to demand as evidence something you know the other party has no access to (in this case, British court case files from 1990). -Branddobbe 01:26, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
No, it's your problem. If something is unverifiable, it will be removed from the article. --Wik 01:29, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
That's absurd. Just because I can't verify something doesn't mean it's unverifiable. It's ridiculous that you focus on one part of an article and ignore the rest of it until I use it to try to show why your arguments are unsound, and only then do you attack the rest of the article. I didn't see you complaining about the supposed unverifiability of those sections until I brought them up as evidence that goes against what you want. Your reverts violate NPOV by removing valid arguments in order to make the article conform to your opinion (in this case, that Sealand is not a valid country). -Branddobbe 10:21, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Can you get a house on Sealand? MysticalCow 01:27, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it. -Branddobbe 01:29, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've done a lot of reading on Sealand in the last couple of days, and several easily findable and credible sources state that England has NOT recognized Sealand as a sovereign nation. One of these quotes a government official to that effect. Exploding Boy 13:50, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

The UK government has contradicted itself a lot on the matter. They don't consider it a sovereign nation, yes, but there have been a lot of court cases brought against Sealand and its inhabitants, all of which have ruled that Sealand was outside of the UK's jurisdiction — including at least one court case after the extension of the UK's claimed waters, which would have included Sealand. Does this mean they recognize it as a sovereign nation? Not necessarily. But it does mean that there is at least some weight to the argument, and that Sealand has been on occasion recognized by the UK as not theirs, so I feel that it would be wrong to take out things from this article that at least show this argument, especially things like "and the legal status of Sealand continues to be under debate" which doesn't even make sense to remove. -Branddobbe 19:30, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Given Branddobbe's well-reasoned comments, I think the article does need to make the comments he wants in the article -- it is obvious that there is some legal basis for Sealand to believe that it is an independent state. It is also obvious that no country has extended it formal recognition, but it still is definitely far closer to being a state than the usual micronation, and this needs to be made plain. I think Wik's demand for court documents is far too strict--I have heard the assertions Branddobbe is making from non-Wikipedian sources before, and believe that the truth is being told. The article should reflect Sealand's actual disputed status. Jwrosenzweig 22:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It is not at all obvious that there is a legal basis. No evidence of those supposed court cases has been provided. I have "heard the assertions" too, but assertions are assertions, and facts are facts. --Wik 22:43, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the Crown government has decided it has no jurisdiction even after they extended their waters. That is a fact. Deal with it.Matt gies 07:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yeah? Document it. --Wik 08:05, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it can be documented satisfactorily, claims for both sides are quite plentiful so both deserve a mention in the article along with a note that we simply don't know which is true. Exploding Boy 08:28, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

The map mislocates London. It looks like the maker set the latitude at 51° when he meant 51.5°. Also, Antwerp's river, the Schelde, should reach the estuary. --wwoods 17:31, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Stop the revert war

Would all users please refrain from editing the first paragraph of this article. I have requested that the page be protected; in the meantime, take a break. Enough is enough. Discuss the issue on the talk page and reach a consensus. Exploding Boy 14:26, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

That "the legal status of Sealand continues to be under debate" should not be removed from this article. The legal status IS under debate. Perhaps it is not under debate by anyone that matters; perhaps one or the other side does not have a leg to stand on. But the fact is, the legal status IS being debated. Quit removing this. Jdavidb 02:22, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

question

Could sealand be recognized as a state???

What did Britain do?

Can Sealand meet the Montevideo Convention? Roughs Tower belong to Britain. Should Britain decide to demolish its property (as it did with the other forts) what happens to Sealand? It will have no defined territory. The situation here is different from Rose Island, as that micronation was the property of it ruler.

Why is the fact the a UK court declines jurisdiction claimed as de facto recognition? Acts of Parliament define a court's jurisdiction by geography and grant that court certain powers. Recognition of foreign states, even de facto, (which in this case meant by omission)is not a function of the Courts.

Surely the illegal occupation another's buildings results in a squat not a principality.

garryq 12:51, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article doesn't claim that Sealand is its own sovereign nation, and it doesn't claim that it isn't. It merely shows both sides of the debate. -Branddobbe 15:35, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

True, but the article is disputed in fact and POV. Apologies for my style, I am used to presenting "devil's advocate" opinions in my offline work. I hope these points are useful in deciding POV for this item, especially if someone wants to rewrite it. In the meantime I have edited the "postal trivia" section as this is NPOV in its implication. garryq 17:19, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll rise to that challenge you put forth, just for the fun of it. From Montevideo Convention:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

I say: (a) this appears to be affirmative, given (b) (b) quite well defined - Roughs Tower was abandoned and is now potentially no longer British property (c) given as stated (d) capacity and desire seem to be apparent

-- UtherSRG 17:45, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wik

Wik: stop taking out the line about the legal status being under debate. It is under debate. In a controversy like Sealand, it is not Wikipedia's place to take a side, whether that side be for or against Sealand's nationhood status. You might not think that Sealand is a country, but that is a POV, which is not allowable in the article. Please stop removing factual information. -Branddobbe 16:55, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

No, it is no more under debate than the shape of the Earth. It is a fact that it is not a country. Stop inserting those false claims. --Wik 16:56, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
How can you look at this talk page, or read the rest of the article, and claim that it's not under debate? -Branddobbe 17:00, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
Whether something is "under debate" is hardly measured by the amount of talk on a Wikipedia talk page. It takes only a few POV pushers, and others responding to them, to fill a lot of space here. --Wik 17:13, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
Look at the article, then. It's clearly under debate. -Branddobbe 17:16, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
Because you wrote it in. So what? You still haven't provided evidence of your mysterious court cases. --Wik 17:17, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
Because I wrote it in? I haven't added anything to the article. The only changes I've ever made were putting back the text you've taken out. -Branddobbe 17:21, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
Makes no difference. If you put something back in that has been removed for a reason, it is as if you wrote it in the first place. You can't say you're not responsible for it. I took it out because it wasn't verifiable, and neither you nor whoever wrote it originally have provided a credible source for it. --Wik 17:28, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
I'm talking about the section called "Is it a real country?". It shows both sides of the argument, and I have never touched it. The debate extends beyond "a Wikipedia talk page". -Branddobbe 18:07, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
Nothing in that section shows how it is "disputed" by anyone other than Sealand itself. --Wik 18:10, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
So what? The POV of Sealand is certainly important to report in the Sealand article. Wikipedia is not supposed to pass value judgments as to whether views are valid or important or not; the facts that certain people hold certain views are simply to be reported. Thus, the view of Sealand should be reported, and adequately described as being the view of Sealand, so get over it. Jdavidb 14:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Wik

I agree with you that Sealand is chiefly ignored by other countries rather than recognized by them. But, I don't think that the article is improved by your edits to the opening paragraph, because it weakens the prose and adds a pugnacious tone to the article -- without adding any new information. I think that the rest of the article sets out the facts fairly well and that readers can decide for themselves. Sealand was created to exploit a loophole in the law, yes; it continues to be tolerated because they haven't upset anyone badly enough, yes; do they matter much, time will tell. Other states have had less auspicious beginnings, and many were not recognized in the early years of their existence. UninvitedCompany 20:18, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is pugnacious about the facts? How does it weaken the prose to remove false claims? --Wik 20:29, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with Wik on this one. Saying Sealand's sovereignty is "under debate" isn't true in a meaningful sense of the word. A debate implies there's two sides, both having some basis to support their position. To use the Taiwan example given above, there may only be about 25 nations that recognize Taiwan as the legitimate Chinese government versus over a hundred that don't, but there are two sides. But in Sealand's case it's 191-0; no other country does or ever has recognized Sealand as an independant nation or is likely to ever do so. Nor does Sealand fulfill any of the other common definitions of being a nation except that there's a small but vocal group proclaiming it. MK 16:38, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
But you can't say who counts and who doesn't in the debate. It's not for Wikipedia to decide whose views are relevant, valid, or correct; merely to report those views. So the article should report that the inhabitants of Sealand claim it is an independent nation, that no country accepts the claim, and let the reader decide if the inhabitants of Sealand have a basis to support their opinion or not. Jdavidb 19:23, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There's probably more people in the Flat Earth Society than there is in Sealand. Does that mean that we should say that the Earth may be flat or spherical because there's an ongoing dispute about its shape? At some point we have to acknowledge that there are some objective facts in the world and just because a small group of people refuse to face reality we don't have to pretend their opinions have equal weight with the facts. MK 03:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Objective facts are not under discussion here; if a subject is verifiably real, and is noteworthy or even simply interesting enough for us to expect that some people somewhere might wish to research it, then it is encyclopedic, and must be included. Sealand certainly is real, noteworthy and interesting. Whether it has more people living on it than there are members of the Flat Earth Society is utterly irrelevant. Are you suggesting that all groups that promote "objectively wrong" notions should be excluded? If so you better start thinking about how you're going to justify excluding articles on all the world's major religions, just for starters.--Gene_poole 05:45, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I apparently wasn't clear in my previous posts. I definitely agree that there should be an article on Sealand; it certainly is a worthwhile topic and overall, it's an excellent article. I was specifically commented on the issue of whether the reference to Sealand's sovereignty being under dispute should be kept or dropped. It's just one line in a long article but one that's caused some controversy. In my opinion (although I appear to be in the minority) it should be dropped for reasons I've already raised. MK 00:49, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps referring to Sealand's sovereignty as being "unclear", "untested" or "unresolved" would be more appropriate. Neither the UK nor Sealand appear to be engaged in any major ongoing disputation on the subject, so saying it is "under dispute" implies a more combative situation than is in fact the case - but there is certainly plenty of evidence of de-facto acknowledgement by the former that the latter has some sort of unusual, non-standard or unique status.--Gene_poole 01:22, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NOTICE TO ARTICLE CONTRIBUTORS:

Wik is presently engaged in a well-documented POV-pushing crusade across a number of articles (ones that I am aware of, apart from the present article, include: Micronation, Empire of Atlantium, Decimal calendar and Avram - I understand there are many others) to insinuate specious or derogatory POV into factual and verifiable original Wikipedia content to which his/her pesonal opinion ascribes alleged "irrelevance". He/she has also openly advocated the use of wholesale article reversion-vandalism as a tool for propagating this POV-push more widely. Bear in mind therefore that attempts at compromise with this user concerning the Sealand article's content and tone will inevitably be coloured by the broader campaign he/she is currently waging. --Gene_poole 21:53, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sealand's sovereignty is definitely debatable, and references to such should remain. The mere fact that problem is not constantly in the minds of world governments does not alter the fact. The debate, of course, is between those who think squatting on a gun deck creates a new country and those, like me, who ask why Sealand quotes King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy to back its claim to sovereignty. Victor Emmanuel required permanent possession and not a simple affirmation of rights of sovereignty. However, as The Pope claimed sovereignty over Rome and the Papal States, which Italy occupied by force of arms, the King was unlikely to say anything else. Yes my POV now is that Sealand does not existent independently, but I am still looking for all of the evidence and answers to all of the questions (and there are a lot), not just reverts. garryq 09:59, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I had not noticed this comment about the Papal States before, but it is my understanding that the sovereignty issue was created by Mussolini when his government granted that power to the Pope. Th Pope did not just made a claim of his own.
Aside from the fact that we are really discussing a Royal Navy sunken barge which the Ministry of Defence still accepts responsibility for with its placement of buoys marked "Rough Tower" which are paid for by UK taxpayers, the first question that has to be addressed is this: Who made Roy Bates a prince? The answer from Roy Bates is that no one did. He made up the title of princess first when he was having a drink in his local pub with his wife Joan. That is how this entire hoopla started.
Without a chain of authority there is no sovereignty issue because the UK has stated and the USA held in its own court cases of 1990-1991, that Rough Tower is a part of the UK. See US Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. US Administrative Court, Docket Number 90-293, October 4, 1990 and subsequent Opinion of 1991 on appeal when the findings were upheld and which have never been disputed, even though Roy Bates has always been aware of this case due to its resolution of the issue as to whether a country called "Sealand" does or does not exist. The court reaffirmed in 1991 that no such entity exists and that Rough Tower is a part of the United Kingdom. MPLX/MH 00:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Images of Sealand

There are a few websites around with quite good images of Sealand (and Prince Michael) during the HavenCo era, e.g. 1 and 2. It seems implausible that the copyright could be lifted from any of these images, but perhaps we could link to the websites? Lots of people are no doubt interested in seeing what it looks like today. -- Jao 13:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Sealand/emails. I have asked them permission about this befor. Walter 12:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Again, stop putting in the sarcastic quotation marks around Principality of Sealand. In addition to the inherently POV tone they add to the article, they are also inaccurate: that section is for what the natives of the country refer to the country as (see Germany, Spain). As they do not refer to themselves in quotation marks, it is incorrect to do so in that portion. (And don't start putting them in other places in the article, because that is sarcastic and has no place on Wikipedia.) -Branddobbe 00:10, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

"that section is for what the natives of the country refer to the country as" begs the question. -- The Anome 12:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Begs what question? What they refer to their country as? Take a look at their website. It frequently says Principality of Sealand — never once with quotation marks. -Branddobbe 21:01, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
I should fix this: that section should display the official name of the country in the official (or at least the primary) language(s). Either way, the result is the same: no quotation marks. -Branddobbe 19:04, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Postage Stamps

I posses within my personal collection multiple examples of mail bearing Sealand stamps/cancellations to the exclusion of all others, that have been succesfully transmitted internationally. I am happy to provide scans of these as required.Gene_poole 14:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Postal Trivia

I have removed the wording which seems to claim that because some envelopes have passed through the mails Sealand is recognised as independent. The Royal Mail is far from 100% efficient. Letters don't get delivered, or second class is delivered before first class. If Sealand wants to use its stamps to claim independence, let it join the UPU. garryq 14:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Mail delivery is not diplomatic representation

The US postal service delivers hundreds of pieces of mail with non-postal "Christmas Seals" on them each Christmas season. By policy, these should be returned to the sender, but they slip through. Slipping through doesn't mean the US considers the "American Lung Association", which issues the seals to make money, as a nation. Nor, despite Miracle on 34th Street, does delivery of mail addressed to Santa Claus constitute a governmental position on his existence. Delivery of mail with Sealand stamps represents error rather than recognition. -- Tweak 14:47, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Nobody has made the ludicrous assertion that having postage stamps "slip through" = "diplomatic recognition". The fact that Sealand's stamps have been used exclusively in the manner described is however an unequivocal and verifiable statement of fact, and should be noted accordingly. Further to the "recognition" argument itself, Sealand has (or at least had, in the late 1960s) a verifiable relationship with Belgian postal authorities to accept mail delivered to that country by helicopter from Sealand, bearing solely Sealand stamps/cancellations, and processed (to my knowledge) hundreds of such items into the international postal system without penalty. That was most certainly not a matter of "slip through" - it was a formal arrangement, that was noted widely in the philatelic press.--Gene_poole 00:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

What the Belgians may or my not do does not effect the fact the the Royal Mail correctly considers Sealand labels as not valid for general domestic or international postage, and therefore marks the envelopes to lost revenue from the recipient.
User:Gene Poole seems to claim Sealand's recognition here in the above reply, as opposed to implying same in the postal section of the main page garryq 12:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you saying that what one country does is not relevant, but what another country doesn't do is relevant?
There seems to be a drive to minimize the question of any sort of recognition of Sealand as an independent authority solely to what Britain does (or doesn't do), as if Britain is the only country in the world that matters to the issue.
After all, Britain was awfully reluctant to recognize a certain other independence movement, so I don't know that Britain should be the watermark for determining recognition of a state. KeithTyler 19:36, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Would suggest merging these as Legal is only one line. -- EuroTom 19:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)


Request Mediation?

Can we please request mediation on this issue with the quotation marks? Please? I suggest that one side would be represented by Wik (anyone else volunteer)? As to the other side - volunteers? Thanks. -Rwv37 15:46, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

The quotation marks is a minor issue. What should happen to this article is that the entire current formatting, particularly the table on the right side, should be removed. That format is reserved for countires. It gives the impression to anyone reading the article that Sealand is a sovereign state, and the addition of quotation marks won't change that - hardly anyone will notice them. Wikipedia needs to make some kind of a decision as to the status of Sealand, both for reasons of formatting and inclusion in lists of countries. Currently Sealand isn't listed as a European state, but it does have the formatting of a state, which is inconsistant. --Voodoo 18:27, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
I thought the whole point was that Wikipedia doesn't make a decision as to the status of Sealand. Regardless of whether it is or not, the information in the sidebox is important information to have, so I don't think it should be gotten rid of. -Branddobbe 20:24, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
"That format is reserved for countires." Can you actually show that policy? And even if so, why? Regardless, let's get mediation. -Rwv37 03:09, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, change 'reserved' to 'used.' Obviously there is a reason that format was used in this article. I don't object to that information being included in the article, just don't think it should use that format. Branddobbe, do you think not including Sealand in the Europe table or any list of European countries is 'not making a decision.' Wikipedia makes decisions of this type all the time. As it should. --Voodoo 03:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

First of all, the taxbox should be gotten rid of. It is granting legitimacy to a fiction, and, as such, taking a position in an POV debate. Furthermore, Sealand has no density. It is a platform with a population of one. On the other hand, why not add in that the Internet and Calling codes are the same as the UK? Would that challenge the sense of indepedence of the guy that lives there? Danny

Your assertion re density is just plain wrong. Scientifically/mathematically there is no justification for saying the concept of "density" does not apply to small populations. If so, what's the threshold anyway? As for this edit war, something desperately needs to be worked out. Perhaps Wikipedia needs a Wikipedia:Micronation policy and soon. -- VV 11:54, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Actually, there was a decision made a while ago not to add articles about every micronation. Certain ones, like Sealand and the Hutt River Province, were deemed exceptions because of the news surrounding them, but including a taxbox for them, thereby granting a certain amount of legitimacy not only falls short of being encyclopedic (which should be the barometer of all that we add)--it also grants these lunatics the attention they crave. Why are we allowing them to use Wikipedia to further their cause. Are we an encyclopedia or are we just a bulletin board where every wacko and his sister can get attention and legitimacy? Danny 12:00, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Come on, Sealand long predates Wikipedia, and I'm sure it's the least of their concerns right now. Simply calling them lunatics is absurd; in fact, I suspect they are shrewd businessmen. As for the article, I don't appreciate uncommented, unexplained reversions of my edits. I am trying to help end the edit war; is that an interest of yours as well or not? -- VV 12:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
It is not your place to decide what is "whacko" and what is not; if you insist in doing so you run the distinct risk of having your own opinions judged as "whacko" by others - and treated accordingly. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic - in other words to be a universal repository of knowledge that may be of interest to researchers, now or at some unspecified future juncture. As long as data is presented in an NPOV manner, and is verifiable by multiple real world sources, then it is, by definition, encyclopaedic.--Gene_poole 12:11, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Flag

The debate whether Sealands claim of sovereignity is or is not disputed seems to be quite hopeless. In the meantime it would be nice if someone could exchange the flag on the site with the correct Sealand flag. Sorry, I did not manage. In the heat of the debate the obviously necessary improvements on the article should not get out of sight. --Oooooo 22:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

The flag currently showing is actually correct.--Gene_poole 02:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Sealand/Archive_1&oldid=369620595"