Talk:Principality of Sealand

Archives
Principality of Sealand	Principality of Sealand2
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sealand

Further information: Template:Sealand table(edit talk links history)

New developments?

The recent addition citing Times Online make it look, as something important has happened recently. But Google News remains rather silent [1]. It seems to me, the only new development, is the sale of a new series of Sealand passports, and the cited court decision is the old one. See also [2]. --Pjacobi 08:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the way the article is currently is ok though, since it just says what the times said. It seems like the times either didn't do much research, or may be simply making a big deal out of nothing. Who knows, maybe more information will come out. Either way, the article certainly doesn't warrant any other modifications unless more definitive materia comes out. - Taxman ^Talk 13:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, Sealand is no longer populatet after it burnt down: "A FORMER wartime fortress which is now a self-proclaimed independent state has been left devastated after a fierce blaze tore through the structure. Sealand is still populated, I have been there recently and met the crew, they have all the necessary supplies and services that they need while further reconstruction is underway

The so-called Principality of Sealand, seven miles off the coast of Felixstowe and Harwich, was evacuated at lunchtime yesterdayafter a generator caught fire." (Cite from http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=news&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=zNews&itemid=IPED24%20Jun%202006%2009%3A12%3A24%3A070)

We have added the transfer information twice: once under history and again at the end under its own subheading. This must be reconciled, as it is the same info twice. Also, links at the bottom link to Spanish site; I didn't know how to formally state that (if needed) so it would be nice if someone showed me how. Cpt ricard 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Micronation

(I'm pasting this into the talk page of all the micronation category articles.)

I've just started a template for the micronation infobox, based on the Sealand box. I've also written usage guidelines on it's talk page. I'd like to please invite any interested people to go over its talk page to discuss the template itself, along with my guidelines. As a demo of the template, please see Lovely (micronation), which I just edited to use the template. --Billpg 23:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

how about economy?

how about a section about the economy of Sealand? That's what catches my attention. Where do they get their food? How do they make money? Do they trade? If so, what?

Thanks

Really good article. Short for an FA, but covering all the major points, and well written. Thanks to everyone who worked on it! Soo 03:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Passport sentence

"Due to the massive quantity in circulation (estimated at 150,000), in 1997 the Bates family revoked all of the Sealand passports that they themselves had issued in the previous thirty years."

Who issued the 150,000 passports? Bates or the other people? --Gbleem 04:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence is worded akwardly. The other people issued the huge lump of passports. Because of that, the Bates' revoked all the passports that they themselves issued (considerably less than 150k). Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Western Sahara

How is Sealand like Western Sahara? Johnski 05:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This juxtaposition is extremely inaccurate. Western Sahara was a previously existing entity, with independence recognized by 44 states, among other significant differences (for instance, it also has a native population asserting a right to sovereignty). The current wording makes it seem as though it is (a) a micronation and (b) unrecognized, both untrue. Ak13 05:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

suggestions

This article could really use some inline citations (see WP:FN). Also, the last two sections of content are amazingly short, and ought to be expanded. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps they could be incorporated into the legal status section? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Shooting Incident

I heard an NPR story about Sealand in which the shooting incident which Michael Bates was summoned to court for was described much differently. The person being interviewed I think was one of the founders of HavenCo, whom [robably knew the Bates personally (but I could be wrong about it being a founder of HavenCo). According to him the shooting happened when British Navy sailors were making cat-calls to his sister whom was sun-bathing. To which Michael Bates responed by firing a .22 caliber rifle in their general direction. I don't remember what NPR show it was (I'm pretty sure it was Robert Seagull doing the report though, information I can use to find the show and then its archives when I have time) I'll try and find the show to see if it is suitable to be used as a source (which might be preferable to the unsourced "according to some reports" information now). Otherwise can someobeody please source the "reports" mentioned in the current article? --Brentt 07:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to use whom (a painful archaism kept alive only by people who use it incorrectly but want to sound smart if you ask me), learn how to use it correctly. Also, to which.

Here's a link to the NPR story [3]. If anyone feels it would add anything of value, we may want to add it to the article.--Alex 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to Sealand editors

Congratulations to Sealand contributors for the article's appearance as FAC OTD for 12-28. A well deserved accomplishment. The fact that a controversial topic can navigate the waters of NPOV without dumping the bulk of its cargo overboard during the trip is a testament to sound, sane application of WP principles and to your work. Long overdue. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 08:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A question

Can you buy alcohol, tobacco, etc. cheaply at Sealand, or get other offshore tax concessions? This would be one test of sovereignty. --Publunch 11:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That would involve the possibility of anyone visiting Sealand - a possibility which does not exist. I've spoken to Roy Bates myself, and Sealand's borders are absolutely closed to anyone without a need to be there. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 11:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Criminy, even North Korea has a tourism industry. - Keith D. Tyler ¶

North Korea has a population of about 22 million, Sealand about 6. I think that this is like comparing apples to oranges... - Ta bu shi da yu 01:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And there's not much of anything special to see on Sealand, anyway. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 02:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I want to see the fabled nitrogen-filled data center. Anyway, my point was from the angle of isolationism, not population. Antarctica doesn't have many people, either, and less government than Sealand, but that doesn't prevent it from having a tourist industry. TEHO. And besides, what's the original source of that NK population number? Is it reliable? :) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, and yeah, even Antarctica has many more people than Sealand. However, people are actually allowed to go to Antarctica. People aren't allowed to go to Sealand, the main reason being the coup attempt/kidnapping of Michael. Even if it was years and years ago, that is the reason Roy cited to me. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 21:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Statistics from Sealand themselves

I got an email with the following data:

 Sex ratio:
  0-14 years:  2.0 males/female
  15-64 years:  6.0 males/female
  65 years and over:  2.0 males/female
 Total population:  4.4 males/female

I know it's from Sealand and not an external source, but I think it would be fair to update the article. Anyone got any objections to me doing this? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL I don't see the harm. But it should be carefully placed AND sourced. Too many think this article (and Sealand itself) is a joke as it stands.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I object. It's frivolous at best, and not verifiable. --kingboyk 03:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a very high male to female ratio, the females there are going to be very busy if Sealand is going to continue existing. Dionyseus 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Images

We really need a larger image, the one we have now is thumbnail-sized Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 22:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to use something from http://photos.venona.com/ in any of the directories not marked "professional", just mark (c) Ryan Lackey and the appropriate year. User:rdl

Why was this image taken out of the article? Kingutd 09:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

guys the picture is WAY TO SMALL, I had to google to get a good view of what it looks like, here some better pictures [4] email them maybe they'll let us use one of them., or use one from here [5] 75.15.227.45 05:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Google maps?

How do you find it on maps.google.com ?

ROFLMAO! You're kidding, right? You don't. That's how.

Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 19:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Um...except that you can, by clicking on the 51°53′40″N 1°28′57″E coordinates link in the first paragraph, and using any one of a number of map sources. If it wasn't for the fact that satellite mapping of the North Sea is fairly coarse, and Sealand is only about 100 yards long, you'd be able to make it out perfectly :) — sjorford (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

R.I.P. Roy "Paddy" Bates

Here's a toast to Sealand's recently departed founder and leader. To a rebel...an adventurer...a soldier and not simply a Man Who Would Be King but one who WAS, on his own terms and in his own way. Such figures are rare, and the world is a more dull, oppressive place for it.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sealand is not just a place, it's an idea, you carry with you in your heart where ever you go.--M4bwav 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

WELL SAID.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide an external link to the news? I can't find a shred about it. --kingboyk 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, what is our source? It's certainly not on Sealand's own website. --Gene_poole 00:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It STILL isn't on the Sealand site, nor is anything showing on Google News. The BBC and the British papers would carry this story for sure. I'm becoming increasingly alarmed that we have been fed a hoax. --kingboyk 04:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If it cannot be confirmed, it MUST be deleted as unverifiable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. I can practically guarantee that Wikipedia is not going to "scoop" the rest of the world on such a news matter. The Sealand people are not going to come here to let us know first. Unless whoever gave us the information can provide a source for us to examine, it MUST be removed until we hear otherwise. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only do I agree with what you said, but further research suggests that the information was inserted by a known vandal. We may have been wrongly reporting someone's demise, which is rather embaressing. Of course, if Mr Bates has passed away I shall look the fool, but I'll take that risk for the sake of Wikipedia. --kingboyk 04:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. Mea culpa... I am certain it was a hoax; there's no way P.R.Bates had Prader-Willi syndrome. +sj + 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've combed through a dozen, reliable sources and nowhere is it mentioned. So Mea Culpa too, for letting sentiment cloud my skepticism. On one hand I'm glad P.R. Bates is still with us...bit on the other GRRRRRRRRR!!!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 03:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

HM Fort Roughs, Rough Sands, Roughs Tower, Sealand, HavenCo, Ryan Lackey, Paddy Roy Bates and even poor old Radio Caroline. The same material appears over and over, often whole paragraphs being almost exactly the same. I've just wasted a few hours trimming Paddy Roy Bates into a focussed, readable overview, merging the HM Fort Roughs articles into one, tweaking cleaning and polishing up. What I haven't done yet is determine what is Sealand history and what is HM Fort Roughs history, furthermore that's likely to be rather more contentious than my bold but I think fairminded and well explained edits so far. I'm an impartial editor with no strong POV on this topic. What I cannot tolerate is that history being told in near identical words in 3 places, and in particular the exaggeration of the importance of Sealand to Radio Caroline. (At the moment this is just a rant, but if you would like to help me by removing the excess Sealand baggage from Caroline, and removing any unneccesary duplication from the other articles I would appreciate it.) --kingboyk 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason all those articles exist is because MPLX (who more than a few of us suspected of being slightly unhinged), wrote or hugely expanded most of them as part of a virulent anti-Sealand campaign he was conducting at the time. With the possible exception of Radio Caroline they can and should be merged into the main article. MPLX eventually offended too many other editors elsewhere and stormed off in a huff, never to be seen again. --Centauri 05:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I knew there'd been some controversy in the past so I've tried to be bold but resolutely neutral. The Caroline article only has excessive Sealand stuff in one section and wouldn't suffer from the loss. I don't object to there being multiple articles either (one on Sealand, one on Mr Bates, one on the fort) so long as I don't keep reading the exact same words over and over :) --kingboyk 05:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be glad to see them all merged into a single Sealand article, with deep redirects from the page titles to specific subsections. That way, among other things, all pages will be kept up to date together. The tower and Mr. Bates are primarily notable in the context of the principality. +sj + 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm most concerned about the Radio Caroline article at the present time. However I can't really face any more Sealand editing for now. --kingboyk 01:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template

Template:User Sealand recognition For those who wish to show support for Sealand on their user pages

What a cool Temp! Good job and thanks!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

why is it gone now?Sir Robert Castellano 23:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Text from the Radio Caroline article

The Radio Caroline article has grown rather unwieldy, and in an attempt to clean it up I have removed the following text which is more relevant to Roy Bates and Sealand than Caroline. I'm pasting it here in case you want to recycle it:

That station was called World Mission Radio and its on air announced address was in California, USA. Before the raid in 1987, Allan Weiner of Maine, USA had twice attempted to broadcast on AM (Medium Wave and Long Wave), FM and Short Wave from the motor vessel alleged to be the Sarah off Jones Beach, Long Island, New York, under the name of Radio Newyork International. Weiner also been on board the Ross Revenge where he had earlier attempted to install a shortwave transmitter. On board was his DJ friend John Ford from the US. Later, after Ford left Radio Caroline he became one of the original investors in Radio Newyork International. Transmissions were received in over half of the US. The first attempt ended when the vessel was boarded in international waters by US Customs, FBI and FCC officials and the vessel was taken into port at Boston.

Following the raid on the Sarah in which Weiner had been brought back to shore in handcuffs, he flew to England for an offshore radio convention in Blackpool and later met Michael Bates whose father Roy claimed to have established an independent country - Sealand - off southeast England. This so-called "principality" was in reality another former British World War II fort (see Radio City death, above). Under a paper transaction, Weiner sold both the radio station and the radio ship to a British company managed by Michael Bates, upon the provision that Weiner would later be able to buy back both the radio station and radio ship. Under this agreement Weiner was to manage the radio station for the alleged British company, while the radio ship itself was to be re-registered by Michael Bates in the country which his father was alleged to have established. Thus Weiner claimed that he no longer owned the radio station or the radio ship.

The next year, the vessel returned to sea again off Jones Beach and again attempted the same broadcasts under the same call-sign, only this time it claimed be owned by a British company with the radio ship itself registered in the

The US government immediately contacted the UK Department of Trade and Industry concerning these British connections to both the radio station and the radio ship, when attorneys representing Allan Weiner also began citing Radio Caroline as an internationally accepted offshore radio station during the case brought against Weiner and his associates that resulted from their first offshore broadcasts in 1987 which had led to Weiner's arrest. Connections were then made between World Mission Radio and the US.

Later, in 1990 during an Administrative Court hearing into a shortwave radio licence being sought by Allan Weiner, the US government again contacted the DTI for help concerning the Principality of Sealand registration of the MV Sarah. In return the same James Murphy who had led the British part of the raid on the MV Ross Revenge then performed a sworn document made under the laws of both the UK and the US. In this document he stated that he was an investigator for the Official Solicitor on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry and that he had investigated the alleged Principality of Sealand. He reported that it was neither a state nor an entity capable of registering ships. This US Administrative Court decision was appealed by Allan Weiner in 1991 and the original opinion was upheld in court.

These international court case connections eventually led to Ryan Lackey abandoning the Havenco internet project at Sealand.

--kingboyk 13:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting thing is the "shop" link on sealandgov.com, where they are now selling lordships. Hahaha.

Ryan 11:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured on That's Incredible!

It's an old show, granted, but I remember a piece on Sealand from That's Incredible. Would that qualify as trivia? If so, someone should add it if I don't in time. Bobak 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Church and East

Found as new addition to Operations:

Sealand has recently entered into a contract with Church and East to construct a marina and other facilities in Sealand. Church and East are claiming that hospitality visits to the Principality will be available from the end of June 2006 and are already taking bookings Sealand@churchandeast.co.uk. The Director Chris Harrington has recently commenced negotiations with a number of high profile sports organisations in the UK, with a view to use the newly available facilities as a press free venue for conferences.

Can anybody offer a source and a working link for this text? For now I've moved it here, it sounds like a hoax. -- Omniplex 02:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• I found the "website" at http://www.churchandeast.co.uk/index_files/page0002.htm, but it really looks incomplete. It looks like it was made using Microsoft Office. But, other than that, no Sealand stuff. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • E-mailing Sealand Government now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the information regarding Church and East, and any proposed activity is confidential for the moment, however further publicity and verifiable information will be available in the not too distant future. The Company do disclose there address on there web site as well as the directors email address, charrington@churchandeast.co.uk and are happy to take questions, however they are bound by non disclosure agreements for the most part. Also the information quoting that a marina was to be constructed from what I can tell is totally false

Pretty much, we are not saying that the whole Church and East/Sealand deal is false or that you guys are making something up, but at Wikipedia, we have a policy that we need to have secondary sources claiming "yes, this is true" or "that's false." Without, it is going to be considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I did not get anything back from Sealand yet, but if the above statement is true, the most I am going to get out of them is either a "yes" or a "no" about the mere existance of the deal. On a second note, when we do have the information in the article, please do not include your email address, since those are usually removed due to spam concerns (not as in you spamming us, but spambots spamming you). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, original research is NOT allowed on Wikipedia. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 17:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I got an email from Sealand, they did not confirm or deny the deal. So, that means, the above information should not be added until something by a third party mentions the deal. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Church and East are now carrying out all the renovations to sealand. They also have signage on the side of the fort [6]

Room enough for 300

"The facility (termed Roughs Tower) was occupied by 150–300 Royal Navy personnel" but HOW? Looking at the picture of Sealand I cannot believe that even 50 people can be accomodated... Verdi1 11:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that maybe after Sealand took it over, spaces were converted into other stuff. But I would really like to see what Sealand looked like when it was still under the control of the Royal Navy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Google:"roughs+tower"+-sealand, the first hit contains a picture, but I'm lost with the fair use legalese here, we can't simply copy it, or can we? -- Omniplex 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is fine; I just had not seen anywhere on the web of what Sealand looked like when it was called its' former name. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see what the forts looked like when they were in millitary use I would suggest looking at Bob Leroi's scrapbook on his website[7] As for the idea of fitting 300 people in them, they were rarely that full but often had a crew of in excess of 100

On a further point I have just seen from companies house in the UK that Havenco as a company has been disolved! [8]

Claim that Sealand is "unrecognised"

According to multiple sources, Sealand's independence was recognised by a British court ruling once, and the Foreign Office later cited that ruling when the German government asked them for assistance getting back their citizen who had been jailed in Sealand for treason, piracy, and insurrection. When the British gov't begged off, it is said that a German diplomat arrived in Sealand to negotiate the release of the prisoner, indicating a de facto recognition of the sovereign status of Sealand.

So, while it may be said that no nation has established a consulate or embassy in Sealand, that some have, in fact, recognised it diplomatically and judicially as a sovereign country. For this reason, I believe the claim that Sealand's independence is "unrecognised" is false. Can we discuss?Citizenposse 02:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We've had that hundred of times. Neither of those actions was in any way a recognition of this sorry excuse of a hobby, and that's it. —Nightstallion (?) 12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, anyone? Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but we've been through this a dozen times already, and I'm talking about 2006 only... —Nightstallion (?) 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sealand is a country

not a micronation. Humphry 20:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

For some it's the mother of micronations. But definitely no country. Take it to Talk:Sealand. -- Omniplex 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Better I do that, I don't want such crap on my talk page. -- Omniplex 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

End the madness.

This thing is relatively easy to demolish. Why don't the british just ruin it, that would be no problem, since they built it in the first place. The War on Terror is perfect justification for that, since such an anarchic place in the close vicinity of Britain poses great danger for the safety of an important ally of USA. Especially considering the fake passports they make.

Interesting theory. Why don't you ask them? --Centauri 08:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

your a maniac. Sealand is a great country (in which Bates did NOT die) and you dont understand micronationalism. Sir Robert Castellano 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's such a great country that we're going to call it a country, not a "micronation". Let's call it for what it is. Watercool

Sealand is a micronation, not a sovereign state, so please stop making changes to the article which wrongly suggest that it is. If you continue to do so you may be blocked for breaking the W:3RR. --Centauri 21:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So then, if Sealand is not a soveriegn state, but it doesn't abide by the laws of any nation, then what is it? From what I see, this has become a debate over people who support Sealand and those who don't.ACfan 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What does any of this (the post that started this little section) have to do with improving the item? The talk page is not a place for people to add thier opinion of the piece, its to discuss improvements. Take the discussion elsewhere. This talk page is already hard enough to get around in without irrelevent drivel being added to it. Shortfuse 00:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fire

Apparently, there was a fire on Sealand a short while ago, and now much of it is in ruins. This should be added to the article.

There should also be somthing about what will happen after this. Could this be the end of sealand?

EDIT: I just reread the fire part and look there already is.--Scott3 20:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Several people added the fire section. I have not seen anything else about Sealand and her fate. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

the BBC gives the damage at 500,000 Pounds; Sealand says over 1 Million USD. Sealand is running a paypal type donation thingie to get cash to fix up the place. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunken ship?

In the legal status section, the follwing statement can be found: However, as Roughs Tower is actually a sunken ship, some have claimed it is not covered by these rulings. Sealand declared that it, too, was extending its claim of territorial waters to twelve nautical miles at a similar time to the UK.. I don't understand the sunken ship part. Can someone explain me this? Mário 22:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the article. Sealand is a specially-designed barge named HMAS Fort Rough that was deliberately sunk by the Royal Navy during WW2. --Gene_poole 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Anyway, it isn't a sunken ship in the common meaning of the term. Cheers! Mário 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

sea territory change

Since the 1968 UK court decision, the United Kingdom has extended its territorial sea to twelve nautical miles (22 km), which it had the legal right to do under international law since 1958 (although the necessary Act of Parliament was not passed until 1987). - OK, this sounds to me like the territory was changed in 1968, but some editors state that it was 1987. which one counts? I would like to know so I can update my map Image:Map of Sealand with territorial waters.png if needed -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The UK extended it's territorial waters by 9 nautical miles in 1987 by an Act of Parliament. The old limit was 3 nm. The new one is 12 nm. By the sound of it the 1958 date probably refers to some sort of international convention on sea boundaries that Britain was a signatory to - although that's only a guess. If so, and if the UK chose not to act on it until 1987, then the old boundary legally applied until 1987. --Centauri 09:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the text in the article should also be changed to reflect this. What impact/significance did the court decision have? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Errr it does actually say it already. What court decision? --Centauri 10:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I get it. I just read the paragraph, and it sounded like the court extended the territorial rights in 1968 (although I doubt the court could do that). I rephrased it for clarity. I will update the map soon. Thanks for the info -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In the court case I think you're referring to the judge said that as Sealand was outside British jurisdiction (ie beyond the 3 nm limit that applied at the time) he was unable to rule on the case. --Centauri 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, finally got around to fix the image. I also uploaded the openoffice.org source file in case someone else wants to modify it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

References

The references in this article are unintergrated; not up to the standard of a featured article. Minglex 17:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Bates Family section picture

No offence meant, but the picture looks like it's been photoshopped to give HRH breasts. It actually looks like breasts, nipples, and a bra. Anchoress 06:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it could look that way... However, when you compare it to the source, it is the same, just lightened/enhanced. Search4Lancer 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

History section

[9] Histrory section was removed by vandal a while ago. Guess we have major work to do. SYSS Mouse 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Transfer?

Could we have more context on what a transfer is as opposed to a sale? It's somewhat unclear in its current manifestation. Cjs2111 22:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a valid nation?

In 1978 a German court ruled that Sealand was not a valid nation: "A man-made artificial platform, such as the so-called Duchy of Sealand, cannot be called either 'a part of the earth's surface' or 'land territory' and only structures which make use of a specific piece of the earth's surface can be recognised as State territory within the meaning of international law." (In re Duchy of Sealand (1978) 80 ILR 683, 685 (Administrative Court of Cologne))

Why didn't Germany or Netherlands rule Sealand as a valid state? If Sealand held hostage of German and Dutch citizens, German or Dutch armed forces shall be allowed to invade Sealand and rescue their own people. -- Toytoy 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing that really caught my interest in this passage is the potential precedent set by the statement "only structures which make use of a specific piece of the earth's surface can be recognised as State territory within the meaning of international law." I'm just thinking how this could come into play in the far off future, when we have some sort of large space-station attempting to assert independence. Macroidtoe 03:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That is easy. Current international laws only govern what is here on Earth. They don't govern Martians and their claims for land on Mars for example, but they are the law that govern land claim disputes made by countries here on Earth. So I don't see a problem from the viewpoint of current international law on large space-station (maybe on another planet) asserting independence. Having said that, international law is constantly changing and may one day govern Martians land claims :p. Kommodorekerz 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

However, back in reality the only real 'international law' is that a state is an area which can defend itself against all attackers. If no-one can invade your Mars colony, then you're a state whether others recognise you or not. Mark Grant 15:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference to sale

The following link appears on today's Yahoo page:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070109/od_nm/island_dc

Jackiespeel 16:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

What will happen to Sealand if, due to global warming, the ocean level rises to a point where Sealand is totally underwater? Will the name of the country be changed to "Underthesealand"? Will the country then be recognized by Aquaman as an independent entity? Stay tuned for details..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.100.21.70 (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Found an excellent article with lots of details

I never edit Wikipedia articles and don't intend to do now. However I found the Sealand article very interesting and did some research after reading it. Finally found a very informative article with lots of details and facts which never made it to wiki and sometimes contradict with the stated facts. So future editors take a look at http://agitpopblog.org/index.php/?cat=13. It's in German, which is not my first languague so I refrain from making edits myself. 87.111.19.155 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sealand for sale?

It was reported at CBC online that Sealand is for sale [10]. It does state in the article that some European courts have upheld its independence. Does someone want to look into this and update the article? 137.82.40.33 00:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Michael Barrie, 16:04, 9 January 2007 (ET)

I believe the reference is the British court decision in 1968 that Sealand was outside British jurisdiction at the time. Certainly no major European countries recognise Sealand as an independent country. Kommodorekerz 09:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

copyvio

This diff is an almost exact copy-and-paste of text from this ABC article. It really ought to be rewritten. Jordan Brown 05:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted a rewrite using information from the archives and other sources. Kommodorekerz 09:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"Principality"

Why does the lead say "Principality of Sealand"? Is there a source out there that refers to it as such? If that's the way it is referred to as by its "owners", then it should be mentioned as such. No?Baristarim 12:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The official website uses "Principality of Sealand", see link at the bottom of page. Kommodorekerz 13:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic sentence about Law of the Sea

The article says

"According to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, there is no transitional law and no possibility to consent to the existence of a construction which was previously approved or built by a neighbouring state. "

This sentence is so ambiguous (and possibly incorrect) as to be unintelligible. What is it trying to say? What is a transitional law and how could it come into play here? There is no possibility for who to consent -- a state? How can someone not have the possibility to consent to the existence of something? Surely it is my right of free speech to consent whatever I want, whether someone asks me or not. Do you mean "contest" instead of "consent"?

As it stands, the most coherent interpretation I can find is that if state A builds a construction or approves the bulding, then a neighbouring state B has no right to agree (consent) that the construction should exist. Or perhaps state B has no right to agree that the construction exists. Ridiculous! -Pgan002 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dollars/Pounds sterling

I have added a contradictory tag to the section on coinage. It alternately states that one "Sealand dollar" is valued at 1 dollar and 1000 (pounds?) sterling by "locals". Besides having no explanation for the huge variance in value, it is unclear who values which at what. Savant45 23:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The claim that its value is 1000 pounds was added by a user that added a lot of nonsense to the article on friday. I think it's safe to say, this was another act of vandalism. I'll remove it and your tag. V 00:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit War Brewing

Perhaps we need some discussion about whether or not information about The Pirate Bay's attempt to raise the purchase price to buy Sealand is worthy of inclusion in this article. I will throw in my thought that they certainly seem sincere in their desire to purchase their own micronation (island, disputed nation, whatever...) NipokNek 06:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of disclosure I will mention that I am a member of buysealand.com and have made a donation to them to help their cause. NipokNek 06:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it needs mention. They need roughly a billion USD. Wikimedia has been fundraising for a month and doesn't even have one million USD. A billion dollars is a lot of money. This is a pipe dream. --Indolences 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's simply one man's POV. Verifiable facts are worthy of inclusion. The very fact that it is such a huge task makes it MORE relevant, not less. And besides, the estimate begins around $100 million at the low end. That's a much more attainable amount. NipokNek 05:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember the people we're talking about; the people too cheap to buy CDs and movies. You think they're going to pony up 100 million? --Indolences 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous statement. NipokNek 09:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay updates - Lets all help to keep the news current and correct...

Well, I'm seeing information that says they might have already dropped their plans to try and buy Sealand, but the referenced link isn't working. Probably cause Digg has been hammering them all day. As soon as I can prove it's not a hoax, I'll add whatever I know about it here. Here's the link I was attempting to follow... [11] NipokNek 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong link (oops). Here it is... [12] NipokNek 09:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The link now works - As I suspected, it doesn't actually say anything about TPB giving up on Sealand. NipokNek 16:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sealand bought

Sealand was bought by a Korean man a couple of days ago. Kirils 16:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite a reliable source. TomTheHand 16:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php4?st=1168809000 Kirils 16:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here [13] is the Google Translated version of that link. I'd prefer to see someone who is a native Russian speaker post about this, but so far it seems legit. NipokNek 16:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a native speaker. I won't give my right arm for it, but the article seems OK to me. Kirils 16:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I only meant that since I was not a native speaker, I wasn't going to post it on the main article page, since I don't trust automatic translations not to miss some fine points. NipokNek 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Kirils

Is someone going to add it to the page then? I would, but don't want to jump into your conversation and edits :) JoshHolloway 18:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that if you're feelin' froggy, then by all means jump! :) I've already stated why I'm not adding the info myself. NipokNek 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

i just got a summary from a russian speaking friend of mine. however, she says the buyer is kazakh, not korean.