Talk:Principality of Sealand

Archives
Sealand	Sealand 2
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sealand

Message from Sealand

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)

Thanks John Carter, it seems that Sealand only considers itself a microstate. The email also tells us that Sealand News' editor and publisher are not linked with the government, and that information on the Principality has significant errors. Does that mean that Sealand News is less reliable as a source?

I'll change the article to what I suggested earlier (so that it follows the convention). Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't yet sighted any email on this subject, so I'm working blind.

The blog clearly contains a great deal of information not documented elsewhere which could only possibly have come from "official" sources, so the claim that there is "no link" is a bit disingenuous - particularly when all the parties involved are almost certainly in personal contact. There is obviously some link, although the precise nature of it remains to be determined.

If the blog doesn't mirror the views of the Bates family, but nonetheless has access to "official" information, then it must by definition constitute an independent source which should - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - be considered reliable.

Of course none of this changes the fact that Sealand actively participates in micronation exhibitions and conferences whenever it has the opportunity to do so - and emphatically avoids participation in conferences of microstates. A case of actions speaking louder than words. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, surely the default is to consider it unreliable. Anybody can publish a website. John, please forward the email to me too, thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, that the official documents of any government are not necessarily considered the most reliable sources. They are useful for several factors, and relevant information on official statements from such sources are generally considered very reliable, but they are not necessarily considered the most reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs) 14:37, 23 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)

Sealand News is the designated official news site of the subject of this article, and it contains much useful information which is not published anywhere else. It should certainly not be removed. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there is no good justification for saying that Sealand News is unreliable. The statement from the government is that it is independent, and that is a far different matter. It is almost certainly as reliable a source as most any other in matters such as these. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that John. You have to provide evidence that it is reliable. The default is unreliable, especially for web sources. Some useful questions for proving reliability might be (off the top of my head): Who are the publishers? What are their credentials? Is the resource relied on or considered authoratative within the area of knowledge in which it operates? See WP:RS and WP:V. I haven't actually looked at the email yet, mind you. --kingboyk (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Corrected a typo. --kingboyk (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably true. However, it clearly is not a "Self-published source", as per the objection raised, as it is not directly published by Sealand itself, but rather an independent entity. It may disqualify on other bases, but not that one. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The requirements actually got stricter by that revelation :) As I understand it, a self published source can be used as evidence of what they said or claim and for basic biographical info. As a 3rd party source it's usable for nothing unless it meets WP:RS. --kingboyk (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Olympic medal?

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)

Yes I noticed that too. I am not sure if I should delete it so I moved it to a better section. I never heard of this claim before though, and Google does not mention it either. A claim that is not true, perhaps? Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that it's unsourced and contradicted by other information, I think we can remove it. Which someone apparently already has. Aridd (talk) 08:26, 23 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)

Fire and related events

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)

This section was added on 29 Feb 2008 by User:Editor70 (Talk | contribs). It is their only contribution to date. The story looks dubious to me too, especially in the absence of a citation to a reliable source. There are some errors, such as the typo "intiaied" and a damaged "ref" tag. I did a quick search for characteristic words from this contribution but wasn't able to find a clear source of copying. --Jdlh | Talk 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think even if an unidentified female crash-landed by parachute onto Sealand it would have been noticed - that is if you can even specifically use Sealand as a landing zone. There isn't even a single reference. Let's replace it with the previous, referenced version - even Google can't find a result for this. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fiction removed. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

References

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)

Coup attempt

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)

It has always been recorded as a real event of Sealand's history by the Sealandic prime minister. However different sources describe the event in different amounts of detail. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Titles

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)

The titles are recognised by the Principality of Sealand, and the there is a link to the titles from the official Sealand website. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

reliable source

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)

E mare libertas

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)

This has been noticed before and it is mentioned in the article, however Sealand officially uses "E Mare Libertas". Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gypsies

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 deleted it without reading this comment. Agreed it was nonsense and probabaly non-notable even if sourced. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Passports

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)

Achenbach

I have heard of many differient versions of the assault story, many of which give the leader differient names, such as Gernot Putz. Could somebody try to confirm the real storyThe Dark Overlord (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lonely Planet names the person as Achenbach. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sealand News

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)

I found one other use of the term; I expect there are many others. Nothing changes. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You probably mean when they use "micronation" in list of news stories. That was on April 21st, they could have been notified by Sealand afterwards. Let's not say nothing changes or even anything changes until we are sure. We'll probably know more when they replace the page. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

E Mare Libertas

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)

Sealand names its motto as From the Sea, Freedom. There has been discussion over whether the Latin is correct, but this article only needs to refer to Sealand's interpretation. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal Status of Sealand, its Titles etc

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)

Firstly, this isn't a forum, your comments don't benefit the article. Secondly please provide references for what you state. Thank you. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

These are the criteria stated by international law under which an entity may consider itself a sovereign state. Being actual land is demonstrably not among these points.

Even if Lutz had been correct, there exists an enormous loophole in his argument: Fort Roughs does not float. It sits in solid contact with the sandbar, which sits in solid contact with underwater land, which is in turn part of the Eurasian Plate and hence part of the surface of the earth. To say Fort Roughs can not be a country because it is not technically land is like saying your house isn't part of your country because it's technically built on a cement foundation.

Please note I personally neither recognize nor not recognize Sealand by making the statements above. I'm just trying to bring some clarity to the discussion. DerekMBarnes (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the page on sovereignty, as well as the one on states and nation states, all mention need to have (control over) territory

And, there is a presendent of a Japanese island that was slowly sinking into the ocean. Japan tried to preserve the island (or rather, the territorial waters and thus fishing rights around it) by putting a concrete structure on top of it that remained above sealevel. But the UN ruled that, once the island itself sank beneath the wave, Japan would loose it's exclusive rights.

Following that line of reasoning, Sealand is not an island and thus, it can't be an independent nation.

But it doesn't end there. I vaguely remember the UN guaranteeing that the Kiribatan nationality will continue to be recognised even if all of Kiribati is swallowed up by rising sealevels

And to make things even more fun, what of those 300-something islands The Emirates are building ... the original idea involved the Emirates giving up control over the islands (once sold, of course) leaving the owners free to declare independence. Now, try and argue that those islands are not 'territory'

All in all, Sealand's status as real territory is, at best, up in legal limbo. Fiji101 (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily "control over" territory. If Russia invaded Ukraine today and took complete control of its government and land, Ukraine's sovereignty would still be recognized by the UN. Concerning Kiribati, rising water would be considered a natural disaster dislocating the inhabitants, rendering them refugees.

It is my understanding of international law that an artificial island may not be built with the intention of declaring it a sovereign territory (case in point, the Republic of Minerva); however, there is nothing against a sovereign entity building an artificial island as an extension of itself. Am I wrong?

If I'm right, it leads into this question: the United Kingdom built and established Fort Roughs as an extension of its territory during wartime; then they abandoned said territory completely, while it still laid beyond their nautical border. If an artifical island can be claimed as geographic territory by its builders, why not so by its successive occupants? DerekMBarnes (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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:

• Since the 1990s and 2000s sections are so small, would it not be better to combine them?

Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are quite a few short one sentence paragraphs. Please expand or merge into surrounding paragraphs.

Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the web sources need to be formatted with Template:cite web.

Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also, some of the like references need to be combined. Specifically, 11, 12, and 39.

Done ----- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 09:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with improving the article. Nikki311 01:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

I have edited the sentence about the court rulings. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The only place where the article mentions British sovereignty over Sealand is the 1968 court ruling, which ruled that it was not under British jurisdiction. Provide a recent source that shows that the UK claims Sealand as a part of its territory. -epicAdam (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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".

I would suggest using British English - Sealand is located within Europe where British English is the English that is taught in school, also Sealand is only 8 miles away from the British coast. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You can use whatever you like. Just make it consistent. -epicAdam (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please renominate when the above revisions have been made! Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

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 Throwing in my own two cents from above, I believe the articles should be merged for the following reasons:

• Sealand is notable because of the issues over its sovereignty and status within the international community. Therefore, all information relating to that issue should clearly be present in the main article on Sealand.
• Much of the information in Legal status of Sealand (it appears like roughly half) is already present in the main article and would likely to be an easy merge.
• The main article on Sealand at present is relatively short and would benefit from the expanded information.

Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:52, 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)

Why Sealand?

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)

It formed after Britain stated that they wanted to capture Sealand. Britain wanted Bates to surrender, but he refused, and then formed Sealand. He wanted to make clear to the British armed forces that they were not going to capture the fort. Bates was a radio broadcaster on the fort, which was illegal under British law. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Article intro

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)

I think editors may be confusing this with a NPOV dispute, because it's been reworded twice in the last 24 hours, but still isn't cited. WP:NPOV isn't the issue; WP:RS is — it's a major fact that goes to the basic nature of the article's subject, and yet has no citation. It's good that "ample citable sources exist" somewhere of the UK government position — now they need to exist here on Wikipedia, at the end of the claim, with a <ref> tag. (As for the new second phrase "Bates' have never mounted any formal challenge to that position": That is probably difficult to maintain, what with 1967 Essex Assizes firearms case and all, which certainly seems about as formal as formal gets.) --Closeapple (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm all about using template:fact when warranted, but no such unsourced langauge should be in the LEAD of such a lengthy article as this. I also feel that the court case mentioned in the previous post is quite plainly a "formal challenge." I'm striking the sentence altogether, until sourced and present outside the LEAD. It warrants longer discussion, if properly supported. MrZaius^talk 10:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re WP:RS, yes, I understand the issue.

The 1967 firearms case did not constitute anything even remotely resembling a challenge by Bates to the authority of the UK government over the status of Roughs Tower. The judge merely determined that he could not rule on the case because the location at which the alleged offence occured was outside his court's jurisdiction - not that it was outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom period. BIG difference.

Bates has never sought to test the legal theory that Sealand is an independent state in any court which actually has the authority to determine such matters - be they British, European or supranational. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying he argued his case in a private lunch with Ban Ki Moon, but it certainly does "remotely resemble" just such a challenge. If the line is fuzzy enough that you're getting this sort of push-back from multiple editors, it's time to back it up with clear RS lest your positions be dismissed as an essayist's WP:OR. Again, it may not be wrong, although it seems somewhat unclear to this editor, but it is certainly a potentially controversial statement worthy of being sourced. Regardless: The WP:LEAD is the wrong place to work towards making new claims. The preceding sentence makes the point just fine, in the interim. Please read the aforelinked guideline on writing an effective and encyclopedic summary in the WP:LEAD. MrZaius^talk 15:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree - and I don't think it's so important it needs to be in the intro paragraph anyway. We did have a cited BBC reference to the UK Foreign Office position in this article years ago, but it seems to have been deleted somewhere along the way. I'll reinsert it when I find it. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:26, 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)

The trial transcript can be cited in support of the "outside the court's jurisdiction" assertion, and that certainly trumps Lonely Planet. This Home Office statement should also be cited in the article. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding ref #12

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))

I edited the article, I'm not sure how to change references, many of the references are doubles; 8, 12 and 25 all point to the Lonely planet book for example. This could be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abacusbox (talk • contribs) 13:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)