Talk:Principality of Sealand/Archive 6

message: Is it possible to bring the Principality of Sealand article back to Featured Article status? This article was a featured article and was "Today's Featured Article" for 28 December 2005. Also, this article is a featured article in 2 other languages, so this task should not be too difficult. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be possible, with the right amount of work, to achieve that outcome. I'm not quite sure why it was un-FA'd; there's always been a small clique of editors who have a problem with micronation content generally, so it might have had something to do with that. --Gene_poole 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Preposterous. If you'd take the time to look, you'd see that at the time the article was defeatued, it had a mere eight citations and was riddled with  tags. Pagrashtak 05:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there are 32 citations in there now, and the anti-micronation POV-pusher Wik has been permanently banned by Jimbo, so presumably once the few remaining fact/cite tags are dealt with, a new FA nomination should be a breeze. --Gene_poole 06:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which remaining fact/cite tags need to be dealt with? I suggest placing a list here including all fact/cite tags that need to be dealt with, and after a fact/cite tag has been dealt with, it can be removed from the list using the  wiki markup. Once all fact/cite tags have been dealt with on this article, it can be nominated for Featured Article status. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Instead of making a list here, you may find it easier and more productive to act  to the statements in the article. Pagrashtak 22:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the statements above already have  attached to them in the article, I created the list after they were attached by other users. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article

message: Dispute over whether the article is correct in only saying that Sealand is a micronation. No agreement between all Wikipedia users has been reached. 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A micronation is a state-like entity that is not recognised by any government and does not need to be a nation first. This is the problem - Sealand is unique. Not all unrecognised nations are micronations. So the question is - is Sealand a nation or a state-like entity? This is something that is difficult to answer on a NPOV encyclopedia because there are two POVs, a POV that supports its micronation status and a POV that supports its microstate status. Both POVs have sources that support them, so the only solution is to include both POVs in the article rather than a constant disagreement over whether Sealand is a sovereign nation. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree on using the passport photos as references with the governments that stamped the passport included in a paragraph in the microstate section. The micronation status section needs to be expanded with more references and an explanation of those references. Other nations don't need to recognise a nation for it to be a nation. Passports are stamped on behalf of a government, and unrecognised passports will be stamped. But these governments should make sure that unrecognised passports are not stamped - if they are they have recognised that passport as an official document. It dosen't matter if it was a mistake - it shouldn't have happened - that is one of the reasons passports are checked. The passport becomes a recognised document. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a problem - it would not be NPOV, and it dosen't matter if it is more wordy, there is always a way of improving the article so that it is NPOV. In fact, the intro is less wordy now - two words shorter. Multiple sources support Sealandic microstate status - and they are not all on the internet. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say multiple sources support microstate status.  Are any of those reliable sources, as defined by WP:RS?  I don't think I've seen any yet.  If two POVs exist, but only one is verifiable by Wikipedia's standards, the one that is not verifiable usually deserves little if any coverage in Wikipedia articles. PubliusFL (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an example. The Lonely Planet Guide to Micronations does call Sealand a micronation, but it does show the reasons supporting microstate status - same with other sources on the internet. The sites themselves may not support Sealandic sovereignty, but there are reasons on those sites that show why Sealand is considered by some to be a microstate. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be yet another source that supports calling Sealand a micronation, but describing the arguments for statehood.  If basically all the reliable published sources call Sealand a micronation, and discuss its claim to be a microstate, why shouldn't this article do the same? Isn't the approach taken by the source you cite the same approach that this article took with its old intro? PubliusFL (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check Sealand's official website - they call themselves a microstate. Also, the above is just one example - there are many documents supporting Sealandic sovereignty - where are the documents that support Sealandic micronation status? I have never seen one. Here is my idea: state that there are references supporting Sealandic sovereignty and Sealandic micronation status. Rewrite the first article, use Empire of Atlantium's first paragraph as a guide. This seems to be NPOV and a better solution than the one thought of earlier. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, maybe some of this could be avoided if the article had just a few words explaining what is meant by "micronation"? Otherwise, I'm generally in agreement with PubliusFL. --kingboyk 13:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC - Sealandic micronation/microstate status

message: FAs need inline citations of course, so I suggest that many or all of the articles in the Bibliography might provide useful material. Any article with comprehensive footnotes only needs a reference/bibliograohy section to list books which have been cited as "author,  page #" in footnotes. In other words, use the Biobliography articles for inline citations instead and scrap the Bibliography section if possible. --kingboyk (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: They key articles are:
*Principality of Sealand, which needs to focus on Bates' statelike entity, with some discussion of the legal issues and context (although the article has many flaws, it's quite well formed with regards to it's topics)
**Sealand dollar ---------- Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we also have Maunsell Forts so the Fort Roughs article is arguably superflous. --kingboyk (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, I said I would try to take much of the text out of HM Fort Roughs and put it in Principality of Sealand, Legal status of Sealand, Radio Essex (pirate radio station), or Talk:HM Fort Roughs, but it's a bigger job than I envisioned. Anybody else interested in doing it? Or do you think that article is fine as is? --kingboyk (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sealand-related articles 

message: Support or oppose the "convention".
*Oppose - The convention is an attempt to seperate the "micronations" from the "sovereign states", but this does not work because how can Sealand or Atlantium for example be seperated when there is no NPOV certainty that either of these can be defined as micronation or sovereign state. the title of the Germany article remains Germany even though there is a longer version of it and though the government of Germany refers to itself by the longer version, Germany is often referred to as simply Germany. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Convention is now part of Wikiproject Micronations. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Convention

message: And very arguably not. Better known than the Vatican or Monaco? Give us a break. Better source needed. Itsmejudith 21:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind striking the sentence unless it can be sourced and unweaseled (actually, I would prefer it), but your proposed counterexamples are completely off the mark. The Vatican and Monaco are certainly not micronations, and calling them micronations would probably be quite offending. They are microstates though. -- Jao 22:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I provided one (good, reliable) source and added a fact tag to invite more. I'm not sure it's possible to state definitively which is the best known, hence "weasel words" are probably unavoidable here. I have no objections to striking the sentence altogether if folks think that correct, but is it not true and verifiable that it's oft reported as being the best known or most infamous? Agree with Jao's analysis also. --kingboyk 14:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so WP makes a distinction - but how clued up is the general public on this distinction? Hardly anyone has heard of Sealand. I didn't remember it, and I watched the "How To Start Your Own Country" programmes on the BBC. Make sure you don't blow this phenomenon up into something that it isn't. Itsmejudith 14:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, but if you see above you'll see that we've had difficulty writing a suitable lead. Any input or suggestions would be most welcome. --kingboyk 15:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arguably best known micronation" 

message: I created this section so that improvements to the infobox itself can be suggested here (list any microstate/micronation suggestions above).
I have placed the infobox for United Kingdom here as an example (ignore where it says location of Princiaplity of Sealand, that is what this infobox does when it's on Sealand's talk page). I think the micronation infobox needs to follow a similar layout. Here are some suggestions:
*Conventional long name and common name
*Links to flag and coat of arms if an article needs to be created in the future.
*Clearer borders for the infobox so that the title is within the borders.
*More links throughout the infobox.
*More detailed map of Sealand's location.
*Coordinates for Sealand's location within infobox.
I am sure there are other ways of improving the infobox. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other problems

message: I have quick-failed this article as it contains many  tags. Some of the references are also not reliable. If you feel this review is in error, take it to Good Article reassessement. Cheers, Davnel03 14:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article quick-fail 

message: If not, then all pictures taken in it are in the public domain, at least in Sealand. If a work is not copyrighted in its country, is it also not copyrighted in the Untied States? SteveSims (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point, but I think we'll assume the laws of the UK apply. --kingboyk (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sealand does use copyright law. Sealand's homepage states: copyright, Principality of Sealand, all rights reserved. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Sealand have copyright laws?