Talk:Legal status of Sealand

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

External article missing

Re the The Times article at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1905641,00.html . It's gone missing. The headline is still there but the article's text appears to be absent. 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest deletion of ref to Times news in brief

This 70-word article was only a news-in-brief, and the statement that Sealand is "outside British national territory and not part of the United Kingdom" should not be interpreted as the product of Times research. It is an inaccuracy written by someone who was unaware of the extension by Britain of her territorial waters in 1987. I suggest removing the reference, and will do so myself in a few days unless someone wishes to argue otherwise. Le poulet noir (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack?

This looks heavily like a coatrack for why Sealand is or should be considered independent/sovereign. Stifle (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was probably created because of the dispute of whether Sealand is a nation or not. There are many problems with this article. I don't think it should be divided into "why Sealand is a nation" and "why Sealand isn't a nation" because then editors will start editing for and against Sealand - not NPOV. Maybe the article should be a recount of the legal status of Sealand and how it was affected over time. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute about Sealand's legal status. In it's current form this article does appear to fall into coatrack territory. A single-purpose editor is currently attempting to insinuate an unreferenced, strong pro-sovereignty position into a range of Sealand-reated articles, and this appears to be one of them. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - I never said anything about pro-sovereignty above. I don't see what's wrong about an accurate recount of Sealand's legal status as opposed to an article with two sections with each section stating that the other is wrong.

And I am not a single-purpose editor introducing a pro-sovereignty position into Sealand articles. In fact, if you read your user page, I am actually trying to solve the dispute (and yes - there is a dispute, a full Sealand talk page of a dispute). Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old article which was indeed probably written to try and push a particular POV. And look how the article HM Fort Roughs started out: it was originally Sealand: A Legal History!!! It's amazing how much Sealand crud there is (or rather was, as I've got rid of a fair amount of it). What's really needed is for the all the unreferenced junk to be removed from all the articles, and one article each created for Sealand, the fort (or maybe the article on the Maunsell forts is enough), and Radio Essex. Alas, it would take a skilfull editor and a lot of time. --kingboyk (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it would simplify everything if the topics on Sealand were limited to around 5 articles. Maybe the Principality of Sealand article should refer to Sealand, while the fort article should refer to the fort itself. This article is going to take a long time to improve. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a lot of argument on the page which (aside from being unclearly worded and rather long) is not cited. I have tried to retain a summary of the cases. I don't claim that it is anywhere near perfect this iteration, though. I may revisit to try and tidy - I removed the passport images and the links to legal opinions as they are all sourced from a single personal site. I think it is enough to state that passports have been stamped by other countries, and that this is the basis for a de facto claim. JohnGray (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

population and economy

an argument not really touched on is the population. according to http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/sealand.htm Sealand has no permanent residents, and no economy. Also, if Sealand is not sovereign, what is it? It seems it would have the same status as a ship, now in British waters, but does that make the government? a organization? a company? Rds865 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sealand does have an economy, lobsters are an example. It does not have the same status as a ship, it is intentionally attached to the ground. Wikipedia describes Sealand as a micronation, as that is what the vast majority of published sources state.

That article itself is completely unreliable and full of inaccuracies. It makes the obvious mistake of saying that the only current resident is Roy Bates when he hasn't directly controlled Sealand since 1999 and he now lives abroad (from Sealand and the UK). His "eight accepted criteria" are just one of the many sets of criteria available, and I don't see how Transnistria, Somaliland or the SMOM pass this criteria - and yet we do not simply say that they are not states. There are many other inaccuracies, but overall the article has little or no research backing its claims.

At Wikipedia, editors use reliable published sources that back the general claim or definition of the subject (in this case, the claim that Sealand is a micronation) - this About article has far too many inaccuracies. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]